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

Goes beyond the single idempotentHint annotation by disclosing the key side effect: the token is invalidated immediately ('token立即失效'). It also explains that the response's 'revoked' field indicates whether revocation actually occurred, which is important for interpreting partial success. Auth requirements and irreversibility of re-login are not spelled out.

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?

Single compact line with the prerequisite and the effect front-loaded, no filler. The semicolon-chained style is dense enough that a first-time reader may need to parse it twice.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, it supplies the prerequisite call, the immediate token-invalidation effect, and the meaning of the returned 'revoked' flag — the essentials an agent needs. Missing only permissions/auth detail and any note on whether the device stays listed afterward.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining where deviceId comes from (list_my_devices) rather than leaving the agent to guess. It does not clarify format (string form of the id) beyond the 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?

Uses a specific verb + resource: revoke the caller's own device ('吊销本人设备'), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like list_my_devices. The leading '登录' fragment is ambiguous (a precondition? a category tag?) and slightly muddies an otherwise precise statement.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: obtain deviceId from list_my_devices first, then revoke. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., revoking another user's device, or alternatives to revocation), but the context for correct invocation is clear.

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