Revoke WHOOP OAuth Access

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it names the concrete destruction (local token file deleted) and the human-in-the-loop requirement. It does not address idempotentHint=false (repeat-call behavior), which is the only remaining gap.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the gating rule. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, gating, and consequences, leaving only repeat-invocation/idempotency unaddressed for an irreversible operation.

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%: explicit_user_intent is already well documented in the schema, and response_format is an enum with a default. The description echoes the intent-gating concept but adds no syntax or format detail, so it only marginally exceeds the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Revoke the current WHOOP OAuth access grant') and adds the concrete side effect ('delete the local token file'). This is clearly distinguishable from the read-oriented siblings like whoop_connection_status and whoop_get_profile.

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 when-to-use ('only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect WHOOP') and when-not ('agents must not call this autonomously'). The gating condition is stated directly, leaving nothing to inference.

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