logout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that tokens are deleted, which is the core destructive action, and specifies the local scope. However, it does not mention downstream effects such as invalidating server-side sessions, the need to re-authenticate, or irreversibility, which would be more transparent.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place. Ideal for a simple 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?

The tool is low complexity: no parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema exists. The description explains the core behavior and scope. It is slightly thin on post-conditions or side-effect warnings, but for a logout action with minimal inputs, it is sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description need not explain parameter semantics. The input schema already confirms no parameters, and the description does not add or require any param-related detail.

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 'Delete' and names the exact resource ('stored LinkedIn tokens') and scope ('for this machine'). This clearly distinguishes logout from siblings like login and auth_status, and leaves no ambiguity about what action the tool performs.

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 the usage context: when you want to sign out and remove locally stored tokens on this machine. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal but adequate for an obvious action.

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