revoke_oauth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and return type, without disclosing side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or whether the provider must already be authorized. This is too thin for a mutation operation.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses a clear Args/Returns structure. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, arguments, and return value. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases, behavioral side effects, and when this tool is appropriate relative to siblings, which limits its 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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by providing examples ('github', 'gdrive'), but it does not enumerate all possible providers or clarify constraints like whether the provider must be previously authorized.

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 'Revoke OAuth authorization for a provider,' using a specific verb and resource. It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like authorize_oauth and list_oauth_providers.

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 implies this tool is for revoking OAuth access but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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