shell_session_revoke

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose strong behavioral facts: the kill is immediate, the replacement session has no injected secrets, and a new sessionId is returned. It omits whether the old sessionId is invalidated, whether any state/workspace carries over, and permission requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the secrecy constraint, then usage, then return value. No filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers action, condition, side effect (no secrets), and return value. It leaves open the fate of the old session and whether dependent state is inherited, but the essentials are present.

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 0% for the single sessionId parameter, and the description only mentions 'sessionId' as a return value, not clarifying that the input is the compromised session to be destroyed. The intent is inferable but not explicit.

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 ('kill a session and rebuild a fresh one') plus a distinguishing scope qualifier ('WITHOUT any injected secrets'), which separates it from the plain close/list siblings. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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 triggering condition ('Use when a session may have been compromised'), which is exactly the context an agent needs. It does not name alternatives such as shell_session_close or say 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.