Revoke GitHub deployment binding

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and read-only=false, but the description adds a specific behavioral consequence beyond the generic destructive flag: it invalidates outstanding deployment tokens. It also scopes the action to exactly one explicit binding, which helps the agent understand the blast radius.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and side effect without filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important information appears first.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly complete. It explains both the primary action and the token side effect, though it leaves the meaning of 'explicit' and the source of the binding ID implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does connect the `binding` parameter to 'one explicit GitHub deployment binding,' but it does not explain where to get the UUID, how 'explicit' is determined, or which bindings are eligible for revocation. Some meaning is added, but the parameter documentation remains thin.

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 names a specific verb ('Revoke'), a precise resource ('one explicit GitHub deployment binding'), and a clear consequence ('invalidate its outstanding deployment tokens'). It is also easy to distinguish from sibling revoke tools like micro_invitation_revoke or micro_private_grant_revoke because the resource type is explicitly stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as micro_github_bindings, which likely lists the bindings that could be revoked here. The description implies the action but never states a when-to-use/when-not-to-use condition or points to a prerequisite call.

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