revoke_token

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and non-read-only, so the description does not need to re-establish that. It adds value by specifying exactly what is affected (the ads.telegram.org cabinet/IP-whitelist token) and that the operation both revokes and regenerates rather than simply deleting. No annotation contradiction is present.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, with no filler. The parenthetical adds the precise scope information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

With zero parameters, an existing output schema, and annotations covering destructiveness, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It tells the agent what will happen and what resource is affected. A slightly more explicit statement about consequences for existing API integrations would make it fully complete.

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 are no parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter meaning. The description's mention of the token adds context but does not need to document inputs. This meets the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 action ('Revoke and regenerate') on a specific resource ('cabinet API token') and pinpoints it as the IP-whitelist token on ads.telegram.org. This is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from session-level siblings like check_session, log_out, and save_api_settings.

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 clear context for when to invoke it: whenever the cabinet API token needs to be revoked and regenerated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but with zero parameters and no overlapping token tool in the sibling list, the context is sufficient.

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