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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key behavior: revocation of the session identified by auth.sessionToken, forwarded as a Bearer token. It does not state irreversibility, idempotency, or response/error behavior, which leaves a meaningful transparency gap for a destructive auth action.

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 key action is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a relevant use case, source endpoint, and auth requirement. The final 'prefer stable config' sentence is somewhat peripheral to this specific endpoint, but the overall description stays compact.

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 auth tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the side effects and expected result of revocation. It omits what happens to the token/session after success, error conditions, and how this differs from revoke_session_id, so it is not complete enough on its own.

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?

It adds semantic value for auth.sessionToken by explaining that it is forwarded as a Bearer token, and gives stable-config guidance for connection.workspaceName/appId. It does not describe the required connection.host or address the empty body/query/params containers, so it only partially compensates for the low schema description coverage.

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 a precise action and resource: it revokes the session referenced by the session token, and the title reinforces the 'current session' scope. This distinguishes it from sibling post_sessions_revoke_session_id, which revokes by session id.

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 explicitly identifies the audience and context: automation clients that only hold a session token and want to revoke it cleanly. It does not state when not to use it or explicitly name the session_id alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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