revoke_token

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

destructiveHint=true already tells the agent this is an irreversible mutation, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It instead restates the operation and gives the raw HTTP method/path (DELETE /tokens/{id}), disclosing nothing about authorization requirements, whether revocation is immediate, or what happens to sandboxes or keys already using the token.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler prose. The HTTP endpoint line is borderline redundant but does clarify the identifier's role, so the size is appropriate if slightly thin.

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 destructive tool the essentials are present, but given destructiveHint and no output schema, an agent still lacks the auth/irreversibility and downstream-effect context that would make this call safely. Adequate minimum, clear gaps.

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 single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema alone does not say what the identifier refers to. The URL template /tokens/{id} in the description implicitly clarifies that id is a token identifier, which is modest but real added meaning over the bare string type.

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?

States a specific verb (Revoke) and resource (personal access token), which is inherently distinct from its nearest siblings list_tokens and create_token. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the alternatives (list_tokens, create_token) or any preconditions such as needing an existing token id. The verb implies intent but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement.

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