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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a destructive session revocation and explains that auth.sessionToken is forwarded as a Bearer token, which is material to invoking the tool correctly. It stops short of describing response or error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences plus an endpoint source line carry the needed information with no fluff. The action is front-loaded, followed by use case, then technical details.

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 relatively simple revoke-by-token operation with empty body/query/params, the description covers the core inputs, endpoint, and use case. It does not describe the response or failure modes, but the tool's purpose and required authentication are sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining how auth.sessionToken is used and by advising stable connection fields (workspaceName/appId) over dynamically generated identity fields. The phrase 'Requires auth.sessionToken' adds semantic requiredness even though the JSON schema lists it as optional.

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 first sentence names a specific action ('Revokes') and a specific resource ('the session referenced by the internal SESSION Bearer token'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like post_sessions_revoke_session_id. The title reinforces the by-token selection criteria.

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 identifies the target use case: automation clients that hold only a session token and want to revoke it cleanly. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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