Revoke a tool gateway session

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, e.g., whether revoking disconnects users, triggers side effects, or is irreversible. The 'Authorization class: board_or_agent' hint is present but minimal.

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 very short, but this is not necessarily concise—it lacks important details. The structure is minimal: repeat title, mention HTTP method, path, and auth class. Every sentence earns its place, but more content is needed. Score 3 for being adequate but not wasteful.

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 tool's complexity (2 params, nested object, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, behavior on success/failure, or parameter constraints. The output schema is present but not described. The description leaves too many gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not explain the purpose of 'companyId' in body or 'sessionId' in path. For a tool with two required parameters (one nested), this is insufficient. The agent cannot discern parameter roles or required formats.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Revoke a tool gateway session'. The verb 'revoke' and resource 'tool gateway session' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like post_tool_gateway_gateway_tokens_by_token_id_revoke, which also revokes something. Still clear enough for basic purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are sibling tools for revoking tokens and managing sessions, but the description gives no context about when to revoke a session vs token, or prerequisites (e.g., session must be active). Only mentions authorization class, which is not usage guidance.

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