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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real context: the live relay session is closed and the physical device falls back to its local unpaired/default flow after authorization failure. It does not address what a repeat revoke returns (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or any permission requirements.

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 sentences with no filler, and the primary effect is front-loaded ahead of the downstream consequence. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description fills in the side effects that annotations cannot express. The only meaningful gaps are the identifier format and repeat-invocation behavior for a non-idempotent destructive operation.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage for the single required "device" string, so the description carries the burden. It implies the value identifies "one screen" but never clarifies whether that is a device ID, name, or pairing token, nor what happens with an unknown identifier.

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?

"Revokes one screen's account authorization and closes its live relay session" gives a specific verb (revoke) and names two concrete effects (authorization removal, relay session teardown). It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like device_get_status or devices_list, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from device_reset, which likely also returns a device to a default state.

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 states what happens but never says when to choose this over device_reset, device_rename, or similar siblings, nor does it state any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the effect alone.

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