auth_revoke_tokens

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a meaningful mechanism (validSince moves to now), which is real value beyond structured data. It omits key behaviors for a session-invalidating operation: whether uid or uids is required in practice (both are optional in the schema), what happens when neither is supplied, whether the call is reversible, and whether it affects only emulator state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the behavioral consequence in a parenthetical; nothing is wasted or buried.

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 three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and effect but leaves gaps an agent needs: behavior with zero arguments, return value (count revoked? nothing?), and scope restrictions beyond 'Auth emulator'.

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%, so the schema already explains uid, uids, and tenant, including that uids is used 'instead of uid.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no mutual exclusivity rule, no note on omitting uid to target all users), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ... refresh tokens") scoped to an Auth emulator user, and the 'sessions must sign in again' clause separates it from siblings like auth_disable_user or auth_set_claims. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the action is 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when you want existing sessions invalidated,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on choosing it over auth_disable_user / auth_delete_user for locking a user out.

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