session_revoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses side effects: marking the row revoked and tearing down live resources (connection, web, telegram client when unreferenced). It does not mention error conditions or return behavior, but the key side effects are covered.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant wording. It packs the action, scope, and side effects into a compact structure.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what happens. It does explain the immediate effect on the session and resources, but does not mention return values or failure modes. For a simple revoke action, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% – the only parameter (session_key) has a clear description ('as shown by session_list'). The tool description does not add extra info beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for clear parameter semantics.

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 (revoke), the target (MCP session), and the effect (marks row revoked, tears down live resources). It also specifies scope (admin or own), distinguishing it from session_list and other session-related tools.

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 provides guidance on who can revoke (admin or own) and hints at the consequence (tearing down resources). However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like session_list or other revocation methods, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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