revoke_user_sessions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description goes further: it declares the action IRREVERSIBLE with no undo and notes that the prior session count is recorded so the audit trail shows blast radius. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 severity tag [WRITE][risk=medium] and the irreversibility warning are front-loaded ahead of the args, and each line of the args block adds a distinct fact with no 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?

For a 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers required input provenance, the safe preview path, target selection, and the irreversibility/audit consequences. Nothing an agent needs before invoking it is missing.

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 carries the full burden, and it does: user_id is traced to its source (list_users), dry_run is explained as a non-destructive preview, and target is described as an IdP config name with default fallback when omitted.

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?

States a specific verb (revoke) and resource (ALL of a user's sessions), with the scope emphasized in caps. It is immediately distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like user_sessions or client_sessions.

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 implies usage through the args block (user_id sourced from list_users, dry_run as a preview) but never states when to choose this over adjacent mutation tools such as disable_user, nor any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions.

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