Revoke DDNS token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known, and the description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the auth requirement (dns:write) and the token scope (DDNS or ACME). It does not state irreversibility or what precisely happens to the credential, but it clears the lowered bar set by the annotations.

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 compact sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the secondary auth note. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed, the token types affected, and the required permission. Minor omissions (irreversibility, how to obtain a token_id) keep it from being fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so zone_id and token_id are already documented as 'DNS zone ID' and 'DDNS token ID'. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, sourcing, or constraints, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb (Revoke) and resource (DNS updater token), and the parenthetical '(DDNS or ACME)' scopes which token types are affected. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_ddns_token and list_ddns_tokens without opening their schemas, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 permission requirement ('Requires dns:write when using an API key') gives useful invocation context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or pointer to related operations such as list_ddns_tokens to find a token_id first. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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