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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, but the description goes beyond that by detailing what exactly is affected (only the session, not orders or artwork) and the security requirement (private token). This adds valuable context that the annotations alone do not provide, such as the irreversible nature of the action and the scope of its effects.

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 concise and well-structured: it states the action and its consequences in the first sentence, then provides scope limitations in the second. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the most important information for the agent.

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 description is complete for the tool's complexity. With only one parameter and a clear output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers the key points: what it does, what it does not do, and the prerequisite (private token). There is no extraneous information needed for correct invocation.

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 describes guestToken as a string with length constraints but does not explain its semantic meaning. The description explicitly states 'private token' which adds crucial meaning about the security and uniqueness of the parameter. This is a significant enhancement beyond the schema, so a high score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Revokes'), the target ('guest session'), and the effects ('cannot create designs or checkout again'). It also distinguishes itself from similar operations by mentioning what it does not do (delete artwork, revoke other sessions without the private token). This differentiates it from siblings like start_guest_session and approve_design_proof.

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 explicit guidance on usage conditions: it requires the private token to revoke a session, and it clarifies that existing orders are unaffected, which helps the agent understand the impact. It also implicitly indicates when not to use it (when you need to delete artwork), and the sibling list shows alternatives like start_guest_session for creating sessions.

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