mail_revokeAPITokenV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states immediate loss of access and irreversibility, which are critical for a revocation action. However, it does not detail side effects or prerequisites.

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 long with no superfluous text. It front-loads the action and immediately addresses key consequences.

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 single-parameter action with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and consequences. It could mention that the token ID must match an existing token, but the schema already indicates it is required.

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 already describes the tokenId parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 an API token') and specifies the resource (Hostinger Email API). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create or list by indicating this is a destructive operation that cannot be undone.

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 notes the action cannot be undone, implying caution, but does not explicitly state when to use (e.g., compromised tokens) or when not to use (e.g., tokens still needed). No alternatives are mentioned.

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