telegraph_revoke_access_token

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

The description notes that the old token becomes invalid immediately, which is a behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether the new token is automatically returned, or if the action requires the current token's validity. Moderate transparency.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no extra words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and result, the second specify invalidation timing.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., the new token). For an agent to use this correctly, knowledge of the response format is crucial. Annotations are absent, and the description leaves a significant gap given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, hitting the baseline of 3.

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 'revoke the current access_token and generate a new one,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like telegraph_create_account. However, it does not clarify what happens to the generated new token (e.g., returned in response), which slightly reduces clarity.

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, such as telegraph_create_account or telegraph_get_account_info. The description only states what the tool does, with no context for selection.

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