Revoke WHOOP OAuth Access

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: it details what is destroyed (local token file) and the gating mechanism (explicit user intent required, no autonomous calls). This complements the destructiveHint annotation without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then adds usage and gating. Every sentence contributes meaning without unnecessary detail.

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 simple revocation tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, gating, and destructive effect. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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 description reinforces the purpose of the explicit_user_intent parameter (gating), aligning with its schema description. However, the response_format parameter is not addressed, and with 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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 tool's function: 'Revoke the current WHOOP OAuth access grant and delete the local token file.' This uses a specific verb+resource and is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which handle revocation.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect WHOOP' and 'agents must not call this autonomously.' This clearly delineates when to use the tool and when not to, satisfying the 'when/when-not' criterion even without naming an alternative.

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