Revoke Google Health OAuth Access

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial context: it deletes the local token file and revokes the OAuth grant. The explicit warning about requiring user intent provides a behavioral guardrail not captured in annotations, making the tool's side effects and authorization requirements transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediate consequence. No fluff or repetition of schema/annotation data. Every word adds value.

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 tool's destructive nature, the description fully covers what is revoked, what is deleted, when it's appropriate, and the necessary user-intent precondition. The output schema handles return values, and the description is complete for an AI agent to safely decide and invoke this tool.

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 50% of parameters with descriptions, with 'explicit_user_intent' well-documented. The description reinforces the semantic importance of this parameter by linking it to the gating requirement, but does not elaborate on 'response_format' or other parameter details beyond the schema. Slight value added over schema.

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 specific action verbs 'Revoke' and 'delete' with clear resources: the current Google OAuth grant and the local token file. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with data queries, auth URLs, or connection status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect Google Health') and provides a strong when-not ('agents must not call this autonomously'). This is a clear usage gate that prevents misuse, going beyond generic guidance.

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