Revoke Google Health OAuth Access

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive (destructiveHint: true) and non-read-only (readOnlyHint: false), and the description matches by disclosing exactly what is destroyed: the OAuth grant and the local token file. It adds the gating requirement that explicit user intent is necessary, making the irreversible consequences and autonomy restriction clear. No contradiction with 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the user-intent condition and the autonomy prohibition. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it deletes, and the strict invocation condition. It is complete enough for an agent to decide whether and how to call it, and no return-value documentation is needed.

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 schema covers explicit_user_intent well (must be true, prevents autonomous revocation), and the description echoes that guard, but the description adds no detail about response_format and does not clarify that explicit_user_intent should be treated as effectively mandatory despite the schema listing zero required parameters. At 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates, so this is adequate rather than strong.

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 a specific verb ('Revoke'), names the exact resource ('current Google OAuth grant'), and adds the local side effect ('delete the local token file') that separates it from read-only/auth-flow siblings like google_health_get_auth_url or google_health_connection_status. The title reinforces 'Revoke Google Health OAuth Access', so an agent can confidently identify this as the disconnect tool.

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 is explicit about the only allowed trigger: 'Use only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect Google Health.' It also states a hard prohibition: 'agents must not call this autonomously.' It does not name alternative tools for reconnecting or checking status, which prevents a full 5, but the when/when-not guidance is unambiguous.

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