ci_revoke_binding

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: revocation stops future CI gateway requests, does not undo already deployed releases, and does not rotate secrets. This gives clear understanding of consequences and boundaries.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the action ('Revoke one CI/OIDC deploy binding') and front-loads the key behavioral note. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers purpose, behavior, and consequences. It is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter binding_id, providing its purpose. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 it revokes a CI/OIDC deploy binding, using a specific verb ('Revoke') and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like ci_create_binding, ci_get_binding, and ci_list_bindings, which deal with creation, retrieval, and listing respectively.

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 effect of revocation (stops future requests but does not undo releases or rotate secrets), helping agents understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, missing the opportunity to guide against misuse.

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