CTM OAuth Logout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful specifics (it deletes both tokens and any pending device-flow session), which is real context beyond the annotation, but it omits irreversibility implications and post-logout auth state.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause (tokens, pending device-flow session) adds distinct information.

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 zero-param destructive auth tool with an annotation present, the description is minimally sufficient. It does not address whether logout affects concurrent sessions, whether re-auth is required, or what happens to in-flight device flows, which an agent might need to reason about.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document, and the description consistently reflects a parameterless operation.

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?

States a specific verb (deletes) and resource (stored CTM OAuth tokens / pending device-flow session). The scope is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like ctm_voiceai_auth_login and ctm_voiceai_auth_status.

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 invocation context (cleaning up auth state) is implied by the destructive verb and token target, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of what to do afterward. Adequate but leaves inference to the agent.

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