revoke_web_logins

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the fact that this is a destructive write is not the description's burden. But the description omits the single most consequential behavioral trait: dry_run defaults to true, so a naive call silently performs a no-op while the agent believes it revoked sessions. For a destructive, openWorld tool this undisclosed default is a significant transparency gap.

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 tightly written sentence with the action front-loaded and the parameter source in parentheses; nothing is wasted. It is slightly under-sized for a destructive tool, but the sizing problem is coverage, not verbosity.

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?

Given no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the definition should explain the dry_run mechanics and the irreversibility of revocation. It supplies the hash provenance but leaves the agent likely to call it with the default dry_run=true and get no effect.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain where hashes originate (list_web_logins), which is genuinely useful, but dry_run is left entirely unexplained despite having a non-obvious default of true that inverts the tool's effect.

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+resource ('Sign out of "Log in with Telegram" websites'), which is concrete and immediately distinguishable from listing siblings. It also ties itself to list_web_logins as the source of the hashes, so an agent knows this is the terminating action in that pair rather than a read.

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?

It gives one useful prerequisite ('hashes come from list_web_logins'), which is the main routing decision an agent needs for this family. However, there is no guidance on when not to use it, no mention that revocation is irreversible, and critically no warning that the tool will not actually revoke anything unless dry_run is explicitly set to false.

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