ksef_auth_terminate

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

The annotations already signal a destructive mutation with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful specificity beyond that: it invalidates the refresh token and explicitly warns that the operation is irreversible.

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, direct sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the irreversible warning is prominently stated without unnecessary explanation.

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 zero-parameter, destructive authentication tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the object being invalidated, and the irreversibility. It could mention what happens after termination, but the low complexity makes the current description reasonably complete.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly omits parameter details because there is nothing to clarify.

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 identifies the action ('Zakończ aktywną sesję KSeF') and the specific mechanism ('unieważnij refresh token'). It is precise about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the overlapping-looking sibling ksef_token_revoke.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ksef_auth_init, ksef_auth_status, or ksef_token_revoke. It states what the tool does but offers no context about when it is appropriate or what conditions should hold before invoking it.

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