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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that revocation is immediate, that a specific auth scope (executor.run) is required, that only the creator or a human owner/admin may act, and that already-revoked sessions return 404 session_not_found. None of that is recoverable from the structured fields, which only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by permission constraints and the error contract. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: auth requirement, permission model, immediacy, and the failure case. The remaining gap is the undocumented result_offset parameter and the absence of a success-return description, which matters given zero annotation detail about responses.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning, and it only explains session_id (its source). project_id is merely implied by 'on this project', and result_offset — an unexpected parameter on a revoke operation — is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose opaque.

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), resource (one live SSH session), and scope (on this project, immediately). It also names the sibling that supplies the session_id (executor_ssh_sessions), so an agent can distinguish this from the listing tool without opening either schema.

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?

Tells the agent exactly where to obtain the required session_id (executor_ssh_sessions) and states the authorization model (creator, human owner, or admin). It also gives the when-not signal implicitly via the 404 session_not_found for unknown/already-revoked sessions, but does not name an alternative tool for bulk termination or for inspecting sessions first.

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