cipp_revoke_sessions

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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating the operation is reversible (user can re-authenticate). Annotations already mark it as destructive and idempotent; description complements with reversibility and the need for user confirmation.

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 concise, containing only two sentences. It front-loads the impact warning and succinctly covers purpose, reversibility, and usage guidance without unnecessary detail.

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 full param schema coverage and annotations indicating destructiveness and idempotence, the description sufficiently covers behavioral context (reversibility) and usage guidance (confirmation). No output schema exists, but the simple boolean result is implied. Complete for a high-impact operation.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('userId', 'tenantFilter'). The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already offers, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 explicitly states 'Revokes all active sessions for a user' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cipp_reset_mfa or cipp_reset_password by focusing 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?

Includes a clear warning ('HIGH-IMPACT') and instruction to confirm with the user before invoking. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool vs alternatives such as cipp_reset_mfa for MFA reset or cipp_disable_user for disabling.

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