Revoke migration token

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, so the description carries a lighter burden. The description is straightforward and consistent with annotations - 'Revoke' clearly implies the token becomes invalid. No additional behavioral detail (e.g., whether revocation is permanent, or affects existing operations) is disclosed, but the annotation covers the core risk profile.

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?

A single precise sentence that fully captures the operation without any waste. Front-loaded with the action verb and target resource. Nothing extraneous.

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?

For a destructive operation on a single resource with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. The sibling tools 'mint_migration_token' and 'list_migration_tokens' provide context for the token lifecycle, but the description doesn't connect to them or explain the idempotency_key parameter (which lacks schema documentation). Given the write/destructive nature, slightly more context about the effect would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67% - both required parameters (project_id, token_id) have schema descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The idempotency_key parameter has no schema description and the tool description doesn't mention it either, leaving a gap, but overall the schema carries most of the burden.

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 a project migration token' uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource ('migration token'), clearly distinguishing it from related sibling tools like 'mint_migration_token' and 'list_migration_tokens'. It's clear and concise though it doesn't elaborate on the object's nature.

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 vs alternatives like revoke_api_key, revoke_personal_token, or revoke_team_invite, though the token type differs. The destructiveHint annotation signals caution, but no explicit context on when revocation is appropriate or consequences is given.

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