Revoke Micro app-user sessions

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint and idempotentHint; the description adds useful behavioral detail about exactly what is revoked and what is preserved. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the non-disabling guarantee is meaningful context beyond structured metadata.

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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, and every clause adds necessary information.

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 the rich annotations (destructive, idempotent, open-world), an output schema, and the schema-covered confirmation parameter, the description is complete for tool selection and invocation. It states the action, target, extent, and non-effect clearly without needing to repeat structured fields.

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 coverage is 67%; path and confirm have descriptions, while user has only format/pattern. The description clarifies that the target is 'one explicit app user', adding some meaning to the user parameter, but it does not clarify confirm or path beyond what the schema already states.

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 an explicit action ('Revoke'), precise scope ('every active session and private download grant'), and a clear boundary ('one explicit app user ... without disabling the user'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like micro_user_disable and micro_private_grant_revoke without needing to open schemas.

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 clear context: call this when you need to revoke all sessions and private download grants for a single app user while preserving the user account. It includes a when-not signal ('without disabling the user'), though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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