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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specificity by naming exactly what is destroyed—the MCP session associated with the token—which goes beyond the generic annotation. It doesn't detail post-revocation consequences, but the core effect is disclosed.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It states the action and the target parameter efficiently, ideal for a single-parameter logout tool.

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 simple one-parameter schema, the annotations, and the straightforward action, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't mention return value or post-conditions, but that is not essential for this straightforward revocation 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter, and the description does not add new semantics beyond identifying the token as the session identifier. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter meaning.

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') and the resource ('the MCP session identified by mcp_token'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which are mostly login/poll/wallet operations.

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 makes clear this is the session-revocation/logout counterpart to the auth login siblings. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection among related auth tools.

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