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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: revocation is immediate and queued work is cancelled, telling the agent the blast radius is broader than the session itself. It omits confirmation requirements, what happens to in-flight versus queued work, and any error/retry behavior for a non-idempotent destructive call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the destructive effect delivered up front. Brevity here shades into under-specification, but structurally it is tight and readable.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, open-world mutation with two required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does too little. It never explains the agent_token auth requirement, what a successful revoke does to the caller's own session, or what failure looks like — the agent would have to guess.

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 compensate and does not: neither session_id nor agent_token is mentioned. 'A ... session' weakly implies a session identifier, but the required agent_token credential and its role in authorizing the revocation are completely undocumented.

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) and resource (GhostKey browser delegation session) plus the side effect of cancelling queued work, which distinguishes it from session_create/session_status. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling ghostkey_session_action, which plausibly could also revoke a session.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as ghostkey_session_action or ghostkey_session_status. The word 'Immediately' hints at an urgent path but never says under what conditions this tool rather than another should be chosen.

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