Delete a SCIM provisioning token

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds value by specifying the permanence, the required confirm flag, and the immediate effect on IdP provisioning. It also honestly notes an unverified path caveat. No contradictions with annotations.

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, with key information front-loaded ("PERMANENTLY revoke"). It includes necessary warnings and a caveat without redundancy. Slightly verbose on the path uncertainty note, but overall well-structured.

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 destructive action with required confirm, the description covers the essential operational context: permanence, prerequisite, immediate impact, and path uncertainty. The sibling tools list includes related SCIM operations, providing sufficient context. No output schema, but return values are likely straightforward.

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 33% (only 'confirm' has a description). The description reiterates that confirm must be true but does not explain the semantics of scim_id or token_id beyond what their names and UUID format imply. Given low coverage, the description should provide more parameter guidance.

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 tool name, title, and description clearly communicate that this tool permanently revokes a SCIM token. The description uses strong verbs ("PERMANENTLY revoke") and uniquely identifies the resource type, distinguishing it from sibling delete operations.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (to revoke a SCIM token) and includes a critical prerequisite (confirm=true). It warns that IdP provisioning breaks immediately, providing context on consequences. However, it does not explicitly guide against use when rotation is intended, nor does it mention creating a new token as the recovery alternative.

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