Disconnect an agent

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

Annotations already indicate this is destructive and not read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the agent must sign in again to reconnect, which communicates the practical consequence of revocation. It also clarifies that the client_id must reference an existing connected agent.

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 short sentences deliver the purpose, the parameter source, and the behavioral consequence with no filler. The most important information is 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers everything essential: what is revoked, where to get the identifier, and what happens afterward. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that client_id comes from get_connected_agents. This gives meaning to the otherwise generic string parameter. A format or example would push it higher, but for a single parameter the guidance is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Revoke') with a clear resource ('an OAuth-connected agent's access') and explicitly identifies the source of the needed identifier. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_connected_agents, which simply lists agents.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to revoke a connected agent's access, and the client_id comes from get_connected_agents. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it or list alternatives, but the operation is unique enough that the usage intent is clear.

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