Revoke Mail API Token

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

The description merely restates the title and adds no behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose that the action is permanent or that services using the token will lose access.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, but it is essentially a restatement of the title. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but lacks any supporting structure.

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 one-parameter destructive action, the description is minimally viable. It states the action, and the annotation covers destructiveness, but it omits any consequences such as token invalidation affecting existing services.

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 fully documents token_id with a description, and the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'mail API token', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mail_tokens_list and mail_tokens_create.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that it invalidates a previously created token or any prerequisites, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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