Revoke channel access token (undocumented)

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true/openWorldHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that the token being revoked may be the one this MCP server itself uses, that every subsequent call will fail, and that recovery requires writing a new value to SE_JWT_TOKEN / SE_OAUTH_TOKEN. It also honestly marks the endpoint as undocumented rather than asserting unverified behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the route and action, then the risk warning, then the usage gate — ordered by decreasing importance. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers effect, uncertainty, blast radius, and recovery path. Nothing material is left for the agent to infer before deciding whether to call it.

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 100% and the single optional 'channel' parameter is fully documented in-schema, including its SE_CHANNEL_ID default. The description adds no extra syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the exact HTTP verb and route (DELETE /channels/{channel}/accesstoken) plus a plain-language gloss of the effect, so the agent knows precisely what resource is being acted on. No sibling tool in the list concerns token revocation, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use gate: 'Only run it if the user explicitly asks for it.' It also supplies the consequence that motivates that restriction (later calls fail), which is exactly the decision context an agent needs before invoking a one-way operation.

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