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

The description explicitly mentions destructive actions ('revoke' and 'clear') which align with the destructiveHint=true annotation. It goes beyond the annotation by specifying exactly what is revoked and cleared, providing concrete behavioral detail. No contradictions with the idempotentHint=true annotation are present.

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, concise sentence that conveys the entire purpose without any fluff. It is well-structured and gets straight to the point.

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 has no parameters and a simple, self-contained action, the description is fully complete. The output schema existence (true) is not detailed, but for a logout action, the return value is typically trivial and not necessary to describe. The description covers all necessary information for an agent to use the tool 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?

The tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is complete (100%), and the description adds no unnecessary information. This is a perfect score for parameter semantics.

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 the stored token and clear local auth state. It precisely identifies the resource (Leafwright MCP token) and the operation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as leafwright_auth_status or leafwright_login. It does not mention when logout is appropriate or when it should be avoided, leaving the decision entirely to the agent.

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