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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, it reveals the concrete consequences: revocation of access/refresh credentials and room memberships, current-connection-only scope, and post-login requirements to restart/reload and verify connection_info owner.id and handle. The description is consistent with destructiveHint=true and does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loads the core action and consequence, then provides conditions, ordering, scope, and post-login steps in compact sentences. No sentence is filler; each adds decision-relevant or execution-relevant detail.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool, the description covers when, in what order, with what scope, and what to do after login. The presence of an output schema means the description need not explain return values, and the annotations already communicate safety and idempotence.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema already exhaustively documents inputs, giving a baseline of 4. The description goes further by explicitly stating the tool 'accepts no account or robot selector,' preventing an agent from assuming optional selector parameters are allowed.

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 names a specific action ('Revoke') and a specific resource ('this authenticated robot connection'), and details what revocation covers ('access and refresh credentials and room memberships'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from read-oriented siblings like connection_info and from robot/account management by stating it accepts 'no account or robot selector'.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions ('only when the human explicitly requests logout, disconnection, or reconnection'), ordering constraints ('Call BEFORE clearing local credentials or running MCP logout/login'), and a scope exclusion ('affects only the current connection'). This gives an agent unambiguous decision rules and sequencing without needing to infer from the name.

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