openshift_deactivate_user_token

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

The description indicates a destructive action (removing a secret) but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the action is reversible, if authorization is checked, or if it triggers cascade effects. With no annotations, this level of transparency is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 sentence, concise and to the point. However, it lacks structured breakdowns (e.g., parameter descriptions), which could improve usefulness. It earns a 4 for being efficient but not earning the top score due to missing structure.

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 tool has two parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to address parameter semantics, return values, or side effects. The agent would have insufficient context to use the tool 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 description provides no information about the parameters 'userId' or 'authorizationKey'. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on what these parameters represent or how to use them. This is a critical gap.

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 ('Deactivate') and the resource ('user token'), and specifies the two locations (Vault index and direct secret). It distinguishes from siblings like 'openshift_set_user_token' and 'openshift_get_user_token_metadata' by focusing on deactivation. However, it could be more explicit that it pertains to OpenShift user 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to deactivate vs. query metadata). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage hints, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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