delete_all_sessions

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

Annotations only say destructiveHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing the recovery consequence ('leap stops working until it is paired again (`leap pair`)') and the precise scope of what is and isn't destroyed ('Passkeys and the password are untouched'). That side-effect and recovery detail is exactly the context an agent can't get from annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the destructive action, then the trigger, then the recovery path and preserved credentials. No filler; each sentence earns its place.

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, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description supplies everything needed: scope of destruction, when to reach for it, post-condition (leap unusable until re-paired), and what survives. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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% for the single `confirm` parameter, and the description doesn't restate its type or required const-true nature. With only one well-documented param, the schema carries the load; baseline 3 applies. The description does echo the stakes of confirming ('leap itself included'), which lightly reinforces the param's 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?

States a specific verb and resource with explicit scope: sign out the profile across every browser session, every paired device, and 'leap itself'. Distinguishes itself from the many sibling delete_* and admin_disable_user tools by making the blast radius unmistakable.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Use it when a device or token may be in the wrong hands.' That is real when-to-use guidance. It doesn't name a narrower alternative (e.g. revoking a single session) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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