Revoke personal token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is known. The description adds the 'current' option detail which reveals it can revoke the tool's own configured token, a meaningful behavioral consequence (the agent could lose access). It doesn't elaborate on reversal/immediate effect, but annotations carry the destructive burden.

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?

One clean sentence with zero waste. States the action, the resource, the parameter semantics, and the special 'current' case efficiently. Excellent front-loading.

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 mutation tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the core action is clear. However, given the 'current' special value that could revoke the agent's own configured token, more explanation of side effects (e.g., whether revocation is immediate, what errors occur) would help. With two params and one undocumented, it's adequate but not rich.

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 coverage is only 50%, and the description only clarifies the token_id parameter (by id or 'current'), which adds value. However, the idempotency_key parameter has no schema description and the tool description doesn't mention it at all, leaving it completely unexplained. The description partially compensates for one param but ignores the other.

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 clearly states the verb (revoke), the resource (personal token), and by what means (by id or 'current'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like revoke_api_key and revoke_migration_token by specifying 'personal token' as the target, though it doesn't explicitly compare. Strong single-sentence purpose.

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 mentions the 'current' option which is useful usage context, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use list_personal_tokens first, or when to use revoke_api_key instead). No mention of consequences like auth impact or prerequisites.

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