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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the immediate ending effect, the prerequisite call, and the return object with 'status set to revoked.' The 'Cost = 5 tokens' note adds cost transparency. It doesn't discuss permissions or irreversibility, but for a revoke operation this is reasonable.

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?

Four concise sentences cover purpose, prerequisite, targeting, and return value. Every sentence contributes 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 simple revocation tool, the description covers the main operational steps and return. It leverages the output schema for details, while providing the prerequisite call and targeting logic. The main gap is lack of error/edge-case handling, but that's minor for this tool.

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 schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the clerk_instance_id targeting behavior from the schema and clarifies the session_id is for revocation, but adds little beyond the structured schema.

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 opens with 'Revoke a session in a connected Clerk application, immediately ending it,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and effect. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session or list_sessions, and from other revoke_* tools that target different resources.

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 explicitly instructs 'Call clerk.get_connected_accounts first' and explains how to use clerk_instance_id to target a specific connection or omit it for the default account. This provides clear usage context, though it doesn't mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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