Revoke link credentials

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

The description discloses that the action revokes credentials and preserves owner access, which is key behavioral information. It does not mention reversibility or return values, but the destructive nature is reinforced by the 'destructiveHint' annotation and the term 'revoke.'

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, concise sentence that conveys the action, the target, and a key nuance (keeping owner access). There is no superfluous detail or redundant phrasing.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description provides enough context to understand its purpose and effect. It lacks explicit edge-case handling or return information, but that is not critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations.

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 parameter 'label' is adequately described in the schema, and the tool description refers to it as 'a link,' which is consistent but not additive. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to elaborate further, so a baseline score of 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) and the target (active secret and capability token for a link). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like protect_link or release_link by specifying exactly what is being revoked.

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 phrase 'Immediately revoke' indicates urgency and the intent to invalidate credentials, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly reference alternatives, but the action is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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