revoke_auth_session

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the JWT vs API-key revocation constraint and the Proof account / PROOF_API_KEY access requirement. It stops short of stating whether revocation is reversible or what the response returns.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the auth-method constraint, then access requirements. The ACCESS block is slightly boilerplate but every sentence carries actionable information.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing behavioral and access context. No output schema exists, but the return value is not something an agent strictly needs here.

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 coverage is 100% with a single self-explanatory parameter (session_id). The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Revoke a specific authentication session by ID.' The resource (auth session) is distinct enough from siblings like revoke_proof, revoke_api_key, and revoke_delegation to be identifiable, though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast with.

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?

Provides concrete operational guidance: JWT callers cannot revoke the current session, while API-key callers can revoke any session. This is meaningful when-to-use context, but it doesn't mention finding session IDs (e.g., via list_auth_sessions).

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