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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the session-scoping constraint and the prerequisite that Bootstrap/CSRF must match, but it does not mention side effects (e.g., subsequent API calls fail), idempotency, or whether the action is reversible. The revoke action is implicitly destructive but not explicitly stated as such.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded ('Revoke the current session'), followed by essential constraints and scope. Every sentence 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?

Given the simplicity of a logout action, an empty schema, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the scope (current session only) and the key prerequisite (Bootstrap/CSRF ownership). It does not explicitly state what happens after revocation (e.g., session invalidated), but that is implied by 'revoke' and is not critical for an agent to call the tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters that do not exist, and there is nothing more needed in this dimension.

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 clear verb ('Revoke') and resource ('current session'), and explicitly notes that only the current session is affected while other product sessions remain active. This distinguishes it from any sibling tools and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides context (it affects only the current session) but does not explicitly state when to use it or compare it to alternatives. The constraint that Bootstrap/CSRF must belong to this browser/session is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, though the tool's purpose is fairly obvious from its name and verb.

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