provider_revoke_service_account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating that existing sessions are invalidated, which tells the agent the effect cascades beyond the token itself. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=false for an operation that kills live sessions, but it is not a direct contradiction of a stated claim.

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 short and front-loaded with the action, but the first two sentences say essentially the same thing ('Revokes the token...' repeated), wasting one of only three lines. The endpoint is useful; the duplication is not.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the session-invalidation side effect, which is the key risk. It omits what state the service account is left in after revocation (does it still exist? must a new token be generated?) and what permissions are required, leaving a meaningful gap for a state-changing call.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter, so the schema already explains it is a service account URN used in the path. The description only echoes that ('given service account URN') without adding format examples or lookup guidance, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Revokes the token associated with the given service account') and even gives the underlying endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as provider_delete_service_account or provider_delete_token, which an agent must still disambiguate by name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus provider_delete_service_account (removes the account) or provider_delete_token (removes a specific token), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the choice 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.