openclaw_device_token_revoke

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Destructive' and explains the consequence. This is sufficient for behavioral disclosure. Could add more details like rate limits or auth requirements, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise sentences that state the action, wrapper, and key consequence. No redundant or unnecessary information. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the effect (revocation leads to re-pairing). It covers the main behavioral context. Could mention immediate invalidation, but it's implicit. Complete enough for a straightforward destructive action.

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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters adequately.

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 resource (device's authentication token). It distinguishes from siblings like 'openclaw_device_token_rotate' by mentioning the destructive consequence and the need for re-pairing.

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?

Explicitly warns that the tool is destructive and forces re-pairing or a new token. This helps the agent understand when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., token rotate). Does not list explicit alternative tool names but the context is clear.

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