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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description complements this by naming exactly what gets destroyed: all connected providers and the whole session. It also discloses the safe fallback to the current transport-bound session when mcp_session_id is omitted, adding context 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 a single front-loaded sentence that states the main destructive action first, then the only optional parameter behavior. Every element earns its place with no filler.

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 one-optional-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the core action, scope, and fallback. It does not elaborate on post-logout state or irreversibility, but the destructiveHint annotation plus the explicit 'remove all' scope make the behavior reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description restates the optional mcp_session_id fallback already documented in the schema, adding no new semantic information beyond what the input schema provides.

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 ('removes') and a precise resource: all providers connected to the entire SSU Campus MCP authentication session. The scope word 'all' differentiates it from the sibling logout_provider without requiring additional inference.

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 implies a broad logout-all use case ('all providers', 'entire session'), but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over logout_provider or when not to use it. The fallback behavior for mcp_session_id is explained, but that is parameter guidance rather than alternative selection guidance.

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