Revoke OAuth Grant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly discloses the destructive nature of the operation: 'revocation is immediate and irreversible,' all access and refresh tokens stop working, and the app must be re-authorized. This goes well beyond the schema's parameter information.

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?

Though the description is longer than average, every sentence adds necessary safety-critical context for an irreversible operation. It front-loads the core purpose, then clearly enumerates warnings and the confirmation requirement, without any redundant filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema. The description completely covers the operation's purpose, precondition, consequences, and user-confirmation protocol, leaving no critical gaps for the agent to invoke the tool correctly and safely.

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 already covers 100% of the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('OAuth grant ID'). The description does not add extra parameter-level details (such as format or examples), but none are needed given the schema coverage. 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 opens with a specific verb+resource combination: 'Revoke an OAuth grant by ID.' It cleanly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'list-oauth-grants' tool, which is a read operation, while this one performs a destructive revocation.

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 provides explicit, actionable usage guidance: it mandates double-checking with the user, tells the agent to reference the app name, warns about immediate irreversibility, and states the exact condition under which the tool may be used ('only if the user explicitly confirms'). This clearly delineates when to use the tool versus when not to.

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