signOutClears cached Microsoft account credentials and local token cache, requiring re-authentication for OneNote access.
Remove the cached Microsoft account, delete the local token cache file, and forget any page text remembered on this computer. The user must authenticate again afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Although annotations already indicate a destructive, idempotent, non-read-only operation, the description adds crucial detail about exactly what gets destroyed: the local token cache file and remembered page text. It also discloses the consequence that the user must authenticate again.
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 tight sentences front-load every important behavior and consequence, with no filler or repetition. Every clause adds information the agent needs.
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-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the operation does, what state it changes, and what the user will experience afterward. Nothing essential 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The schema is complete at 100% coverage and the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline 4 applies here.
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 specific verbs ('Remove', 'delete', 'forget') and names the exact resources affected: the cached Microsoft account, local token cache file, and remembered page text. This clearly distinguishes signOut from siblings like authenticate and authStatus.
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 tool's purpose obvious: use it to clear local authentication state and force re-authentication. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough within the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.