auth_revoke

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Revoke a token' implies a destructive irreversible action, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., token becomes invalid), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon success. The presence of a 'test' parameter is also unexplained.

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 extremely concise at three words, which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It does not contain any wasted words, but it misses the opportunity to provide critical context in the same space.

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?

Given the simple structure (1 optional param, no required params, output schema exists), the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what token is revoked, how to obtain it, or what the response indicates. More context is needed for a destructive operation.

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 0%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions. The tool description does not mention the sole parameter 'test' at all, adding zero meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with 1 optional parameter, the description should at least hint at its purpose.

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') and the resource ('token'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not specify what type of token (e.g., OAuth, app token) nor distinguish it from related tools beyond the name; given sibling tools include 'auth_test' and 'tooling_tokens_rotate', the purpose is clear but could be more specific.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It is purely a statement of action without any contextual direction.

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