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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the consequence ('forcing it to re-authenticate') and the security rationale. It does not mention reversibility or permission requirements, but for a single-parameter tool with an annotation, this is adequate behavior disclosure.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action, then explains the consequence and purpose. It is concise and information-dense without redundancy, earning a top score.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and a clear destructive annotation, the description provides all essential context: what it does, when to use it, and the behavioral result. The REST endpoint adds technical reference. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema already fully describes the parameter (deviceId, type string, 'The device id.') with 100% coverage. The description does not add any param-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Expire') and resource ('a device's node key'), clearly stating the action and its purpose (forcing re-authentication). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_device or delete_key by focusing on key expiration rather than deletion. The REST endpoint is also provided for precise identification.

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 a clear use case: 'a security response to a compromised or lost device.' This implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. For a destructive operation, this context is sufficient to guide selection, but it could be stronger with explicit when-not-to-use statements.

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