Revoke Token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state the consequences of revocation (e.g., immediate invalidation, idempotency, error handling), side effects, or permission requirements. The agent cannot anticipate the tool's full behavior from this description alone.

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 5 words, but this comes at the cost of necessary detail. It is front-loaded and efficient, yet under-specifies key aspects. For a simple tool, brevity is acceptable, but it should still cover essentials like parameter meaning and behavioral notes.

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 tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide a complete picture of invocation, side effects, and return behavior. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent ignorant of response format, error states, and whether the operation is safe to repeat. This is insufficient for reliable selection and invocation.

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 0% (the 'token' parameter has no description). The description only says 'Revoke a Node-RED bearer token', implying the parameter is the token to revoke, but offers no details on format (e.g., full token vs. JWT, with/without 'Bearer'), required properties, or constraints. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Revoke a Node-RED bearer token' clearly states the specific action (revoke) and the resource (bearer token). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'node-red-auth-login' which creates tokens, and other runtime tools, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 (e.g., token must be valid), no exclusions, and no context about typical usage scenarios like logout or security incidents. The agent receives no help in deciding appropriate invocation.

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