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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, so the description's added value is its nuance: only current sessions are invalidated and authorized users can reopen the page. This clarifies the destructive scope beyond the raw annotation flags.

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, with the primary action front-loaded and a single clarifying consequence. Every word adds value and there is no 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 destructive tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description should explain expectedRevision and possibly the effect on the page itself. The behavioral outcome is stated, but critical parameter semantics are missing, so the description is not fully context-complete.

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% and the description provides no meaning for pageId or expectedRevision. The expectedRevision parameter in particular is left completely unexplained, which is a significant gap.

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 ('Invalidate') and a distinct resource ('current private viewing sessions'). This clearly differentiates the tool from the page-management siblings, none of which concern viewing sessions.

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 implies the usage scenario (ending active private viewing sessions) and clarifies the consequence for authorized users, but it never explicitly says when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tool targets viewing sessions, so explicit routing is absent.

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