share_logout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the deletion semantics are known. The description adds real value beyond that by scoping exactly what gets destroyed (the local token only) and warning that env-var tokens survive and must be cleared in host configuration. It does not say whether any server-side session is revoked, which is the one remaining gap.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the primary action, with the caveat second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition needs only to explain scope — which it does. The only missing element is whether the remote session is invalidated, which matters for a logout tool but is partially implied by 'local token'.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed.

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+resource: delete the locally stored token. It also disambiguates the tricky case of environment-variable-supplied tokens, which cannot be cleared by this tool. It does not name a sibling (e.g. share_auth_status or share_login_start) as the alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: call it to clear a persisted local token, and the second clause tells the agent this call is the wrong tool for env-var-based credentials, which must be removed in host config. That is effectively a when-not condition, though no named alternative tool is offered.

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