twitter_customer_session_delete

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds crucial transparency: idempotency (revoking twice returns ok with deleted=false), zero cost (works even out of balance), self-serve nature, scoping to own API key, and the limitation about not logging out of X. This goes beyond structured fields and does not contradict 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?

The description is detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: action, result, side effects, and external behavior. It is well-structured with a clear front-loaded main statement. Slightly verbose due to the need to explain idempotency and external effects, but this is justified for a delete operation. Not overly long for the complexity.

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?

Given the complexity of a session-deletion tool with side effects on other tools and external X account, the description covers all needed aspects: return behavior, cost, scope, idempotency, and the limitation regarding x.com cookies. The absence of an output schema is compensated by describing what the response looks like (deleted=false). This is complete for an agent to understand the full ramifications.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description explicitly states 'it takes no account identifier of any kind' and explains why, which adds semantic meaning about the absence of parameters beyond the schema. This is valuable for an agent to understand that no input is needed and why.

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 clearly states the tool revokes an X account session and deletes stored credentials. It distinguishes from siblings like twitter_customer_session (which creates sessions) by explicitly mentioning it is the reverse operation. The verb 'revoke' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 explicit when-to-use: after registering with twitter_customer_session. It also tells when not to rely solely on this tool (does not log out of x.com) and suggests additional action. The effect on other authenticated tools is clearly explained, making usage context unambiguous.

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