forcepoint_mcp_http_token_revoke

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the operation is mutating and high-risk, which are important behavioral traits. It also flags the conditional auth requirement. However, it does not describe specific effects like token invalidation or return values.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and risk level with no unnecessary words.

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 revoke operation, the description covers purpose and risk, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it leaves gaps such as response format and exact permission details. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions tokenId and provides context for authorizationKey, but does not explain userId. This is partial compensation only.

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 states a specific action: 'Revoke a user-scoped MCP HTTP bearer token by tokenId.' This clearly identifies the resource and scope, and distinguishes from sibling token operations like get and upsert.

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?

It provides usage context by labeling the operation as 'Mutating and high-risk' and specifies that authorizationKey is required when admin auth is enabled. This gives conditional guidance but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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