sign_out

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

The annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining the mutation. It does this well by specifying the stored sign-in and the machine-local scope, which clarifies what state is affected and that this is not a global revocation.

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 word adds meaning: the action, the entity, and the machine-local scope.

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 no-parameter, side-effect tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is forgotten and where. It does not mention return values or behavior when no sign-in exists, but these are minor for such a simple operation.

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 description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema.

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 ('Forget') and resource ('stored ezQuill sign-in'), and clarifies the scope ('on this machine'). It clearly contrasts with the sibling tool authenticate, so an agent can distinguish sign_out from it.

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 usage: call this when you want to clear the locally stored sign-in. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention authenticate as the alternative for signing in, leaving some routing to inference.

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