mailkite_delete_app_password

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

The annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which signal mutation. The description adds critical behavioral details: it explicitly says the effect is immediate ('Takes effect immediately') and describes the consequence ('any IMAP session or API call using it stops authenticating'). It also discloses the authentication requirement ('Requires a management session token'). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects.

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 three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the action, the immediacy and impact, and the prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. This is an model of conciseness.

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 (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete enough: it states the action, the effect, and the required token. It could mention what the response is (e.g., success/failure), but that is typically expected for a delete operation, and the user asked for broad context. The annotation `idempotentHint=true` also implies repeated calls are safe, which the description does not need to repeat.

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 schema describes the only parameter `id` with coverage 100%, but the schema's description is minimal ('Path parameter `id`.'). The tool description does not add any detail about what `id` refers to (e.g., the app password ID). However, because the schema fully documents the parameter's existence and the tool purpose is clear, the description does not need to compensate heavily. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 an app password') and the resource ('app password'), which is precise and immediately differentiates it from siblings like `mailkite_update_app_password` (which modifies, not revokes) and `mailkite_rotate_app_password` (which replaces). The verb 'Revoke' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (when you need to invalidate an app password) but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like rotation. However, the sibling list includes `mailkite_rotate_app_password`, which is the obvious alternative for when you need to replace rather than just revoke. The requirement for a management session token is mentioned, which is a clear gate for use.

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