cipp_revoke_sessions

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is reversible ('Reversible by the user signing in again'), and it is high-impact. It explains that the user will be forced to re-authenticate, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a warning symbol. It front-loads the high-impact nature ('⚠ HIGH-IMPACT') and then succinctly explains the action, reversibility, and requirement to confirm. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple purpose and the fact that the schema fully describes parameters, the description covers the key contextual aspects: impact, reversibility, and need for confirmation. It does not mention what happens if the user has no active sessions, but for the typical use case, this is complete enough. No output schema exists, but the return value is not critical here.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, describing userId as Azure AD object ID or UPN, and tenantFilter as tenant domain or ID with 'allTenants' option. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Revokes all active sessions for a user, forcing them to re-authenticate.' It specifies the verb (revoke) and resource (sessions), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reset password or disable user by focusing specifically on session revocation.

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 includes a strong usage guideline: 'Confirm with the user before invoking.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (only after confirmation). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like reset MFA or password reset for similar outcomes, which would have elevated the score.

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