Revoke a JWT session

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive, but the description adds context: the session is invalidated immediately, the holder is signed out, and the severity matches API key revocation. This goes beyond the generic destructive flag and explains the real-world impact.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every clause adds value. No fluff or redundancy beyond a useful severity comparison.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and effect. It does not mention idempotency or reversibility, but annotations already convey destructiveness and non-idempotency. The only gap is lack of jti explanation, which is partially mitigated by the tool name.

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 50% (only confirm has a description). The description repeats that confirm must be true but adds no new meaning for jti, leaving the parameter ambiguous. It does not explain what jti is or how to obtain it, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action: 'Immediately invalidate one active browser/console session.' It specifies the resource (a JWT session) and distinguishes it from API keys, which separates it from sibling tools like delete_api_key.

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 implies when to use (revoking interactive sessions) and contrasts with revoking API keys, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide 'when-not-to-use' guidance. The requirement for confirm=true is mentioned, providing a usage constraint.

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