jms_expire_connection_token

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency but only says 'expire explicitly'. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or impact on active sessions, leaving critical information missing.

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 a single clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the action and resource effectively. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks 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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits essential context about side effects and behavior. For a mutating tool with simple parameters, the lack of detail about consequences makes it incomplete for safe invocation.

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%, and the description mentions no parameters. The only parameter, token_id, is left entirely unexplained, so the agent has no guidance on its format, source, or meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'expire' and identifies the resource 'connection token', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list/create/refresh tokens. The action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention whether tokens auto-expire or when manual expiration is appropriate. The description provides no context beyond the basic action.

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