oauth2_clients_revoke

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: the revocation cascades to access and refresh tokens, the action is irreversible, and the calling credential restriction is specified.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The irreversible nature and credential restriction are surfaced immediately.

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 destructive operation, the definition covers scope, irreversibility, cascading token deletion, and credential restrictions. Output details are not needed because no output schema exists, though a note about the response shape or effects on the app record could add slight value.

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?

There is one required parameter (uuid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description does not add any additional detail about the parameter, which is acceptable under the baseline rule.

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 ('OAuth2 application and all its associated access and refresh tokens'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like oauth2_clients_update or 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 gives an authentication restriction ('Cannot be called via API key or OAuth2 token') but does not say when to choose this over related operations such as rotate_secret or update. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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