revoke_user_sessions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly discloses that the action is IRREVERSIBLE, that there is 'no undo,' and that the prior session count is recorded for audit. The dry_run preview option is also disclosed. This goes beyond a minimal statement of effect and gives critical safety information, though it stops short of describing exact return values or permission requirements.

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: the action, risk level, and irreversibility are stated first, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition of schema fields.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, side effects, audit trail, dry-run capability, and parameter provenance. The only minor gap is an explicit statement of the return format, but the audit reference hints at what the user should expect. Overall it is sufficiently complete for a 3-parameter destructive tool.

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 explain all parameters. It does so fully: user_id is sourced from list_users, dry_run is explained as a preview without revoking, and target is described as an optional IdP config reference. Each parameter receives practical, non-obvious context that the raw schema (titles only) does not provide.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Revoke ALL of a user's sessions.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_sessions (read-only listing) and disable_user (disabling the account itself). The scope and irreversibility are highlighted immediately.

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 intended use is implied by the verb 'Revoke' and the explicit 'ALL' scope, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The dry_run parameter implicitly suggests a preview workflow, but it does not explicitly contrast with read-only tools like user_sessions or other user management tools such as disable_user.

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