ci_revoke_binding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that revocation stops future requests but does not undo deployments or rotate secrets, which is helpful. However, it omits whether the action is reversible, required permissions, or any side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

Two sentences, direct and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. No extraneous words or unnecessary 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the outcome and its limitations. It covers the essentials: what revocation does and what it doesn't. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., success confirmation) or potential error cases, which would improve completeness.

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 100% (binding_id described). The tool description adds that revocation stops 'CI gateway requests' and clarifies limitations, which extends the schema's description ('Revocation stops future CI requests only'). This adds modest value, but the core meaning is already in the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool's action: 'Revoke one CI/OIDC deploy binding'. It specifies the effect (stops future CI gateway requests) and distinguishes from sibling tools like ci_create_binding by focusing on revocation. The additional detail about what it does not do (undo deployments or rotate secrets) further clarifies the scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ci_list_bindings or ci_create_binding). It does not mention prerequisites, error states, or conditions under which revocation is appropriate. The description only explains the effect without contextual usage direction.

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