auth_revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and succeeds admirably. It states the destructive consequence (deletes all stored tokens), and the NOTE section reveals the critical side effect that all accounting/time-tracking tools will return auth errors afterward until the companion flow is re-run. This is exactly the post-condition disclosure an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Every section earns its place: purpose, WHEN TO USE scenarios, argument confirmation, return shape, and post-condition warning. The bolded section headers make it scannable, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this definition is complete. It supplies a sample return value, names the sibling steps to re-authenticate, and discloses the failure mode that follows invocation. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or anticipate its effects is missing.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is fully covering (100%), so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with an explicit 'TAKES NO ARGUMENTS' line, which removes any doubt. There is nothing further parameters could require.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke the current FreshBooks OAuth session and delete all stored tokens.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings auth_status (check state), auth_get_url (start new flow), and auth_exchange_code (complete flow), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit WHEN TO USE section with unmistakable trigger phrases ('disconnect FreshBooks', 'sign out', 'remove my FreshBooks connection'), a concrete switching-accounts scenario, and a security rationale. It even routes the agent through the sibling flow (auth_get_url → auth_exchange_code) for re-establishing the connection.

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