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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: authentication requirements and the restriction that a JWT caller cannot revoke the current session, while an API key caller can revoke any session.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then moves to constraints and access requirements. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter mutation tool, though the final ACCESS paragraph is slightly more verbose than necessary.

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 one-parameter destructive mutation with rich annotations, the description covers the important missing behavioral context: authentication requirement and JWT/API-key scoping. It does not describe post-revocation effects or immediate invalidation, but the annotations and simple schema carry most of the remaining burden.

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?

There is only one parameter, session_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines it as 'Session ID to revoke'. The description adds no syntax, format, or selection detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb and resource: revoke a specific authentication session by ID. It clearly identifies the object as an authentication session, distinguishing it from related revocation tools like revoke_authorization and revoke_api_key, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

It provides clear usage context by explaining the Proof account requirement, the need to authenticate, and the key behavioral distinction between JWT and API key callers. It also gives an explicit when-not condition, but does not compare against alternative sibling tools such as list_auth_sessions or get_session.

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