revoke_docker_session

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

The annotations already indicate non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying that the mutation is limited to the authorization and that the user container is neither stopped nor removed, which is useful context beyond the structured hints.

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 no filler; the key verb, object, scope, and an important non-effect are all included in 19 words.

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 one-parameter revoke operation with a rich output schema and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but it omits the relationship to related authorization/optimization tools and how the session_id is obtained. This leaves the agent to infer the surrounding lifecycle.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining the session_id parameter, but it never mentions it or explains its source, format, or how to obtain it. The tool name and parameter name provide only weak inference.

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 states a concrete action ('Revoke one Docker authorization') and scopes it to authorizations held by this project MCP process, and clarifies it does not stop or remove a user container. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling revoke_docker_optimization_session, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 the tool is used when this MCP process holds a Docker authorization that should be revoked, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus sibling tools such as revoke_docker_optimization_session or authorize_docker_session. The 'without stopping or removing a user container' clause is a behavioral qualifier, not usage guidance.

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