avanza_live_session_revoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing effects. It transparently states the state transition to paper-only mode, but does not mention reversibility, whether existing live orders are affected, whether the change is immediate, or what response the agent should expect. This is adequate but not rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation-like tool.

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 tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately clarifies the resulting mode. Every word contributes meaning.

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 session control action with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives the essential effect but omits operational details such as session scoping behavior, reversibility, and post-call state confirmation. The schema covers parameters, but the description alone would leave an agent uncertain about side effects and how to verify success.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters and the legacy alias relationship. The description does not add extra meaning about when to supply session_id or tenant_session_id, which is fine because the schema fully covers the semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action, 'Disable live mutation permission for this MCP/TUI session and force paper-only mode,' which clearly identifies the resource and the outcome. This distinguishes it from the sibling avanza_live_session_authorize by being the inverse operation, and from paper-only tools by explicitly controlling live mutation permission.

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 description: call this when you need to revoke live trading ability and switch the session to paper-only. However, it does not explicitly contrast with avanza_live_session_authorize or state conditions such as 'use this instead of X' or 'use when Y'. There is no exclusion guidance or prerequisite information.

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