revoke_refresh_token

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

The description goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation, disclosing that success is not evidence of action, that revoked and non-existent tokens are indistinguishable, that no credentials are sent, and that revoking a refresh token does not invalidate already-issued access tokens. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place, from the critical 'SUCCESS HERE IS NOT EVIDENCE' warning to the access-token lifetime detail. The most important behavioral caveat is front-loaded, and the structure makes the tool's risks immediately visible.

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 description is complete for a destructive, side-effect-bearing operation: it covers expected behavior, false-success semantics, credential requirements, capability requirements, and downstream effects on access tokens. Nothing essential for safe invocation is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clearly defines `token` as the refresh token itself and excludes common confusions like client id and access token. It does not explicitly explain `token_type_hint`, but its default of `refresh_token` reduces the gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a refresh token.' It immediately distinguishes the token from a client id and an access token, making the tool's scope unambiguous and separating it from OAuth client management siblings.

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?

The description gives clear context for how and when to use the call, including that it requires the admin capability profile and that it is the one call sending no credentials. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools, but the uniqueness of refresh-token revocation is strongly implied.

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