pve_token_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It warns that revocation is permanent ('MUTATION (IRREVERSIBLE)') and explains the dry-run plan and synchronous execution. This is good disclosure for a destructive operation.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loads the purpose and critical warning. Every sentence adds value, though the mention of 'PLAN flags HIGH' could be clearer.

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?

The description covers the mutation nature, dry-run, confirm, and synchronicity. Given an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks details on the exact effect (e.g., immediate invalidation) and parameter usage.

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 only 25% (only proximo_target has a description). The description does not explain userid, tokenid, or confirm beyond mentioning the default. It adds minimal value over the raw 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?

The description clearly states 'permanently revoke an API token', which is a specific verb-resource pair. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pve_token_create and pve_tokens_list.

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 explains the dry-run default and the need for confirm=True to execute, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings.

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