mimikatz_kerberos_purge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Purge' implies a destructive action, the description does not state that this invalidates the current authenticated session, that the user will need to re-acquire tickets, that elevated privileges may be required, or how this affects other running processes. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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, front-loaded sentence containing only the essential information: the verb, the object, and the scope. Every word earns its place and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter tool the description states the core action adequately, and no output schema means return values need not be described. However, as part of a security-sensitive mimikatz toolset, the description omits the disruptive consequence (loss of all cached credentials, forced re-authentication) and any indication of privileges needed, leaving the agent without full operational context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the operation takes no arguments by not referencing any. There is nothing for the description to add to the schema, and the description doesn't invent phantom options.

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 uses a specific verb ('Purge') plus a clear resource ('all Kerberos tickets') and scope ('from current session'). It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like mimikatz_kerberos_list, mimikatz_kerberos_ptt, and mimikatz_kerberos_golden without opening any schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of cleanup after ticket-based attacks, no indication that it should be used before testing golden/silver tickets, and no mention that listing (mimikatz_kerberos_list) or injection (mimikatz_kerberos_ptt) are different operations.

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