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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that auth.userToken is required and forwarded as a Bearer token, and that the workspace must have enableSelfService enabled. It does not detail side effects or error behavior, but the revoke action is clear from the description and title.

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: purpose, prerequisite, source, auth requirement, and config guidance are each on their own line. The source line is mildly redundant with the tool name, but the overall structure is easy to parse and free of filler.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: the call's scope, the workspace feature flag, the auth token requirement, and a config preference. It does not describe the response shape or failure modes, but for a single-session revoke action the key operational details are present.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining auth.userToken's forwarding behavior and the intended stable-config role of connection.workspaceName and connection.appId. However, it leaves params.sessionId semantics implicit, relying on the path template and tool name rather than describing the parameter directly.

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: 'Revokes a session owned by the caller in the current workspace.' The phrase 'Self-service dashboard endpoint' helps distinguish this from the more generic sibling post_sessions_revoke, and 'owned by the caller' scopes it to the current user.

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 clear usage context: it is a self-service endpoint, restricted to the caller's session, and requires workspace enableSelfService: true. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use when those conditions are not met, so it stops short of a 5.

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