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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds valuable context: existing orders are unaffected, artwork is not deleted, and a private token is required. These details go beyond the annotations and clarify the tool's side effects and security boundary, making the behavior transparent for the agent.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy. It is tightly written and efficient, scoring high on conciseness.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, limitations, and non-effects. It does not describe the return value, but that is not required when no output schema exists. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it 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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It refers to the 'supplied guest session' and mentions a 'private token,' which implies guestToken is the private identifier, but it never explicitly defines the parameter. This gives some meaning but leaves the exact nature of guestToken implicit, so it does not fully compensate for the schema's lack of description.

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 a guest session) and the result (cannot create designs or checkout again). It is distinct from sibling tools like start_guest_session, which creates sessions, and there is no other revoke-like tool, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when you need to revoke a guest session) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It does provide a constraint ('cannot revoke another session without its private token'), which limits usage, but lacks explicit routing guidance compared to the best examples.

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