github_credentials_revoke

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

With no annotations and an extremely brief description, the tool's behavioral traits are entirely opaque. The agent is not told whether the revocation is permanent, what side effects occur (e.g., invalidating tokens, terminating sessions), or if any confirmation or rollback is possible.

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?

At six words, the description is extremely concise, but it sacrifices all informative value. While brevity is generally positive, here it results in under-specification: the description does not earn its place by providing any useful detail.

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?

Given the vast number of sibling tools and the complexity of GitHub's credential management, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to specify which credentials are affected, how the list is provided, and what the response looks like. The absence of an output schema further compounds the incompleteness.

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 only one parameter 'body' described generically as 'Request body (JSON object)' with no further specification of its internal structure. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the agent must guess the required fields for the credential list (e.g., array of IDs, credential types).

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 list of credentials' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'github_credentials_revoke' without adding specificity about what kind of credentials (e.g., personal access tokens, OAuth tokens) are being revoked. It lacks the detail needed to distinguish this tool from other revoke-related tools in the sibling list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when revoking a specific credential type or using a more targeted revoke endpoint. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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