Revoke Token

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which correctly convey that this operation is destructive and not read-only. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond 'revoke', but this is consistent with the annotations and not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and directly states the tool's purpose, fitting the simple one-parameter interface.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has minimal context: it does not explain what the 'id' represents, what happens upon revocation (e.g., permanent invalidation), or what outcomes are expected. While the destructive annotation helps, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the operation's effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'id' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'id' refers to. With 0% schema coverage and no additional context, the meaning of 'id' is entirely unspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Revoke an API token' clearly states the action (revoke) and the resource (API token), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createToken and listTokens. It is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to invalidate a token, nor does it warn against using it for other operations. The agent is left without usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.