poll_token_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether revocation is immediate or permanent, whether an already-revoked or missing token errors, that it requires the session_secret, or what effect revocation has on in-flight polling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and its scope.

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?

The presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values, and the tool is a simple two-parameter revoke. Still, with no annotations and no usage or behavioral context, the description is barely sufficient for an agent to know when revocation is appropriate.

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% and both parameters (session_id, session_secret) are documented in the schema as required values returned by session_open. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 verb+resource (revoke the active ephemeral poll token) and scopes it to this session, so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling poll_token_issue and poll_token_renew tools, leaving the token lifecycle relationship implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools poll_token_issue/poll_token_renew or when revoking should be preferred over letting a token expire. Usage can only be inferred from the name.

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