auth_revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'revoke' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's reversible, what happens to subsequent API calls, or if there are rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and immediately states what gets affected (authentication and tokens), making it optimally concise for its purpose.

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 authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'revoke' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, whether there are side effects on other tools, or what authentication state results afterward. Given the complexity of authentication management, more context is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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') and target ('current authentication and clear tokens'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like auth_status or auth_get_url, which serve different authentication purposes.

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 like auth_status (check authentication state) or auth_exchange_code (obtain new tokens). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite conditions for invocation.

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