End current viewing sessions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit for disclosing what actually gets destroyed (private viewing sessions) and the recovery path (authorized people can reopen the page), which is real context an agent cannot infer from the annotations. It stops short of noting that the operation targets a single page or that it is not idempotent in practice.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core effect is front-loaded before the mitigating detail. Nothing here is redundant with the name or title.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the effect and the recovery behavior adequately, and annotations cover the danger. It is incomplete on the revision/precondition mechanics that determine whether the call succeeds, which matters for a non-idempotent operation.

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 both required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails. It never mentions pageId (only implicitly via "sessions" and "the page"), and expectedRevision — a concurrency token that will cause failures if stale — is completely unaddressed.

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 names a specific verb ("Invalidate") and a specific resource ("current private viewing sessions"), which is far more precise than the tool name alone. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like update_page, unpublish_page, or set_page_sharing, which also affect page visibility.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as unpublish_page or set_page_sharing, and no prerequisites (e.g. ownership or edit permission on the page). The second sentence describes a consequence of calling it, not a condition for calling it.

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