auth_logout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by stating it revokes and deletes tokens. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—environment-provided tokens cannot be deleted—but does not describe other side effects or reversibility. Given the annotations cover the main safety concerns, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action is stated first, followed by a crucial limitation. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately concise for a simple logout 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential action and a key limitation. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it might benefit from noting that logout is destructive (already implied by the destructiveHint annotation). Overall, it is complete for its simplicity.

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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage trivially. Per guidelines, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics further. It correctly focuses on behavior instead.

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 tool revokes stored Google authorization and deletes local tokens, using specific verbs and resources. It also adds the nuance about environment-provided tokens, distinguishing it from auth_login and auth_status without ambiguity.

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 tool is the logout counterpart to auth_login and auth_setup, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It does provide a caution about environment-provided tokens, which is useful, but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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