Desconectar o Outlook

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, but the description adds valuable context: it deletes the saved login locally, does not revoke organization consent, and always requires human confirmation before execution. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 compact sentence with the destructive warning front-loaded and no filler. Every clause adds meaningful information: scope, effect, non-effect, and confirmation requirement.

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 simple one-parameter local logout action with no output schema, the description fully covers what happens, what does not happen, and the required consent gate. Nothing necessary for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke the tool is missing.

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?

Schema coverage for the single optional parameter is 100%, and the parameter's own description already explains that it is for internal testing and normally not needed. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: it 'apaga o login salvo do Outlook nesta extensão', which clearly identifies what is deleted and where. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from org-level revocation, so an agent can tell it apart from other Outlook tools like outlook_conectar.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is a local disconnect, not a revocation of organizational consent. It implies when not to use it (when the goal is to revoke consent) and states the required human confirmation, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly.

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