Auth revoke self

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing exact idempotent behavior: 'a second call returns `{ revoked: false, reason: 'already_revoked' }`' and clarifies the error case for br_ik_* keys. It also specifies that both access and refresh tokens are revoked, which is not in 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?

The description is concise, three sentences total, with the primary purpose front-loaded. It includes only essential details about idempotency and error conditions, with no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description fully covers functionality, idempotency, and error handling. It also provides actionable guidance for the br_ik_* key case, making it contextually complete without needing return-value details.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so schema coverage is high (100%). The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is appropriate given there are none. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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: 'Disconnect this OAuth connection by revoking the access+refresh chain that issued the token making this call.' It uses a specific verb (revoke) and resource (OAuth connection), distinguishing it from sibling tools like auth_whoami.

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 explicit guidance on when not to use it: 'Refuses with not_oauth_token when called under an br_ik_* instance key — rotate those from the dashboard instead.' It implies use for OAuth tokens, though it does not explicitly compare to alternative auth tools.

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