Revoke Oura OAuth Access

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that it 'deletes the local token file,' which explains the destructive nature beyond annotations. 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?

Two sentences, both essential. First sentence states the action, second gives usage condition. No wasted words.

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?

With annotations (destructiveHint, openWorldHint) and an output schema (present but not shown), the description covers the core behavior and usage. However, it could briefly mention what the user experiences post-revocation (e.g., disconnection confirmed). Still, it is adequately complete for a simple destructive 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: only explicit_user_intent has a description in the schema. The description reiterates the intent parameter but adds no new detail for response_format, which has an enum and default. The schema's own description for explicit_user_intent is already clear ('Must be true after the user explicitly asked to disconnect'). The description adds marginal value: it repeats the gate requirement but does not explain response_format.

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 action: 'Revoke the current Oura OAuth grant and delete the local token file.' It specifies the verb (revoke) and the resource (OAuth grant, token file), distinguishing it from related tools like oura_connection_status and oura_get_auth_url.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Use only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect Oura.' It also notes the gate: 'Gated by explicit_user_intent: true (requires explicit user intent).' This provides clear context and exclusion criteria.

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