Revoke Oura OAuth Access

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

The description confirms the destructive nature of the tool (revoke grant, delete token file), which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation. However, it does not add significant behavioral details beyond what the annotations already convey, such as the irreversibility of the action or any side effects.

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 description is extremely concise, consisting of two front-loaded sentences. Every word serves a purpose: the first states the action, the second provides a usage guideline. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and usage condition. However, it lacks details about the consequences (e.g., loss of access, need for re-authentication) and the expected return values, though the output schema might fill that gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the only parameter (response_format). With an optional parameter having an enum, the description should clarify what the parameter controls (e.g., output format), but it provides no guidance, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone.

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 verbs 'revoke' and 'delete' with clear resources 'Oura OAuth grant' and 'local token file'. It also distinguishes the tool by stating 'Use only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect Oura,' which sets it apart from other Oura tools.

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 the tool ('when the user explicitly wants to disconnect Oura'), providing a clear condition. While it does not mention alternatives, the context implies that other tools handle connection and authentication flows.

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