Revoke Token

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

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations: it mentions that the server returns HTTP 200 for both successful revocation and invalid tokens, that it revokes both Access and Refresh Tokens, and that repeated calls are safe. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but description adds context.

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 somewhat redundant (e.g., 'Revoke authorization of an access token' and 'Use this to revoke or disable the specified Authentication records'). It could be more concise by avoiding repetition. However, it is still informative and front-loaded.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description covers key aspects: action, response behavior, token scope, and client_secret requirement. It could provide more details on potential error responses, but it is reasonably complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Revoke authorization of an access token.' It specifies the verb (revoke) and resource (access token), and mentions the endpoint POST /oauth/revoke. The tool is distinct from siblings which are primarily CRUD operations for other resources.

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?

The description provides usage context, such as requiring form-data body, noting that client_secret is only necessary for confidential applications, and stating that repeated calls are safe. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no other token revocation tool exists among siblings.

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