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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key auth-dependent constraint (via JWT cannot revoke current session; via API key any session can be revoked) and explains the access workflow. It does not mention irreversibility or response behavior, but covers the most critical nuance.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose-truth. The second 'ACCESS' section earns its place by providing necessary authentication contextasiw, and every sentence contributes actionable information without redundancy.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is quite complete: it covers the core action, auth constraints, and access workflow. It omits how to discover session IDs (e.g., via list_auth_sessions) and does not state whether revocation is permanent, but these are secondary given the low complexity.

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 100% and the only parameter (session_id) is already described as 'Session ID to revoke.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a specific authentication session by ID.' This unambiguously identifies the action and object, and the added JWT/API key constraints help distinguish it from related session operations like get_session or revoke_api_key.

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 gives important access guidance: requires a Proof account, how to authenticate, and explicitly warns that start_login does NOT open this tool. However, it does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as revoke_api_key or list_auth_sessions, so usage context is mostly implied.

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