revoke_api_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Revoke/delete' clearly signals mutation and that the token will become invalid, which is transparent for this simple operation. However, it doesn't mention whether the action is irreversible, requires authentication, or affects any existing sessions using that token.

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, compact sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action ('Revoke/delete') and the target ('an API token') directly, making it easy to parse.

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, single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the core purpose. It could note that the token is immediately invalidated or reference related tools for managing tokens, but given the low complexity, 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% coverage: the 'name' parameter is described as 'Token name to revoke'. The description's mention of 'API token' aligns with the parameter, but the schema already explains the parameter adequately. Since the schema is fully descriptive, the description adds little extra semantic value but the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Revoke/delete' and the resource 'an API token', which is specific enough to distinguish it from token-creation and listing siblings (create_api_token, rename_api_token, list_api_tokens). However, it doesn't elaborate on scope or side effects beyond deletion.

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 usage when an API token should be invalidated, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., renaming a token) or any prerequisites such as token name availability. It is a minimally viable hint but lacks sorting context.

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