oauth2_clients_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses that the action is irreversible ('This action is irreversible') and states the authentication restriction. It covers the critical behavioral traits well, though it doesn't mention what happens to existing integrations or whether this affects the caller's own session tokens.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the action and its scope; the second adds irreversibility and authentication constraints. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what it does (revoke app + tokens), its irreversibility, and its auth constraint. A small gap exists around the side effects on the revoking user's own tokens/integrations, but the core information is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% and the sole parameter 'uuid' is documented as 'OAuth2 app UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 scenario per the rubric since the schema already fully documents the single parameter.

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 verb 'Revoke' and the resource 'OAuth2 application', and specifies the scope of the action ('all its associated access and refresh tokens'). It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like oauth2_clients_create, oauth2_clients_update, and oauth2_clients_rotate_secret.

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 explicitly states 'Cannot be called via API key or OAuth2 token', which is important usage guidance about authentication constraints. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios relative to siblings, but among OAuth2-related siblings the destructive revoke action is clearly distinguished by context.

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