sessions_destroy_all_other

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly state the destructive outcome: destroying all other sessions and force-logging out everywhere else. However, it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or the fate of the current session beyond the word 'other'.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the core action in the first line and no filler text. The Args block is minimal but useful in signaling a required parameter, even though it is underspecified.

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 logout-all operation with no annotations, the description leaves out critical safety and invocation details: the meaning and required value of confirm, irreversibility, and clear differentiation from sessions_destroy. The output schema covers return shape, but it cannot compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context.

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?

The only parameter, confirm, has 0% schema description coverage, so the description needed to explain it. Saying 'confirm: Required' adds some meaning, but it does not say what value must be passed or what confirm actually confirms. This is especially confusing because the schema marks confirm as optional with default false, creating a direct contradiction.

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 ('Destroy') and resource ('every other session'), and the parenthetical 'force logout everywhere else' makes the effect unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from the sibling sessions_destroy because 'every other' and 'everywhere else' signal the all-sessions-except-current scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sessions_destroy or other session management tools. There are no conditions, prerequisities, or explicit alternatives, so an agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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