Revoke App Token

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description explains concrete runtime effects: the token stops working immediately, clients still using it get auth failures, and no replacement is issued. It also enumerates auth-related error responses, which is valuable behavioral context not present 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 most critical information is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by structured, compact sections for requirements, auth, errors, and related tools. Every sentence adds operational detail with no filler or repetition of annotation fields.

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, auth-gated mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, authorization context, failure modes, and relationship to sibling tools. The only omission is the success return value, which is not essential for a tool of this kind and is not expected given no output schema exists.

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 100%: all three parameters (`tokenId`, `appId`, `timeoutMs`) have descriptions with types, constraints, and defaults. The description reinforces the `tokenId` source and `appId` fallback, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 opens with 'Permanently revoke an app token by `tokenId`', giving a specific verb, resource, and behavior. It further differentiates itself from siblings by noting that no replacement is issued and explicitly routing revoke-and-replace use to `ethora-app-tokens-rotate-v2`.

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?

It clearly states the prerequisite ('a token id from `ethora-app-tokens-list-v2`'), the required auth mode (B2B with `b2bToken`), and common error conditions (401/403, 400, 404). It also names the alternative for a revoke-and-replace workflow, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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