Revoke Access Token

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

The description reinforces the destructive nature already indicated by the destructiveHint annotation and adds context that it affects 'API clients using that token'. This additional context goes beyond the annotation.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and adding essential guidance without unnecessary details.

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 simple revocation tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, warning, and a helpful precursor action. It is sufficient for the agent to use correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by explaining that the 'id' parameter is 'the access token id returned by list_access_tokens or generate_access_token', providing source context not in the schema description.

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 action: 'Revoke an existing personal access token by id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate_access_token' and 'list_access_tokens'.

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 provides explicit guidance: it warns that revocation is destructive for API clients using the token and advises to list tokens first if the id is unknown. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus listing tokens.

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