coolify_logout_server_registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key consequence—deployments pulling private images will fail—but omits other important behavior such as whether confirmation is enforced, whether re-login restores access, and what permissions are required.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the destructive warning is front-loaded before the operational consequence.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, version compatibility, and the primary risk. It could be more complete by stating that confirm:true is required and mentioning the inverse login operation, but the essential context is present.

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 schema already documents uuid, registry, and confirm with examples and validation rules. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Log a server out of a Docker registry') and names the relevant platform version. It does not explicitly contrast with the inverse sibling coolify_login_server_registry, so it falls short of the strongest differentiation score.

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?

It flags the operation as destructive and describes the downstream consequence, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like coolify_check_server_registry or coolify_login_server_registry. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the warning.

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