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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context by clarifying the blast radius — saved designs and checkout links are separate outputs and survive revocation. It does not mention any auth/permission requirement, but the capability-token model is implied by the schema.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the action and the trigger front-loaded and the scope-limiting note following. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

A two-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already carry safety and idempotency semantics; the description covers purpose, trigger, and blast radius. It could optionally note what a successful revocation returns, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters fully described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting implicitly that this session's credentials are involved, which the schema already conveys in more detail.

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 and resource — "Revoke this session's editing capability" — which cleanly separates it from start_design_session and get_design_session among the siblings. The added clarification about saved design and checkout links existing as separate outputs further bounds 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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: "when the user asks to end it." That is a clear usage context, though it does not name alternatives or state what to do if the session is already revoked (idempotency is only conveyed via annotations).

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