Отозвать API-токен терминала

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burdeneds and it does disclose a critical trait: the action is irreversible ('Безвозвратно'). This goes beyond the tool name alone and helps an agent understand the consequence before invoking it. It does not cover permissions or response behavior, but the irreversibility disclosure is substantial for a revocation operation.

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 sentence with no filler. The key qualifier 'Безвозвратно' is front-loaded, and the object of the action is clearly stated. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The operation is simple, has only two required parameters, and the schema fully documents them. The description provides the essential context—irreversible revocation of an API token—which is sufficient for a low-complexity destructive action. It does not detail post-conditions or response format, but given the simplicity and full schema coverage, this is not a significant gap.

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%, so both parameters (tokenId and terminalId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('отзывает' / revokes) and a clear resource ('выпущенный JWT публичного API' / issued public API JWT), making its function unmistakable. It naturally distinguishes the tool from related siblings like wata_terminal_api_token_create and wata_terminal_api_tokens_list.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It defines the action but does not help an agent decide between revoking, creating, or listing tokens.

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