FortiMail Logout (no-op)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing the return shape ('short confirmation'), the absence of side effects, and the architectural reason (Bearer-token auth, no server-side session), which goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three labeled lines, front-loaded with Purpose, each sentence carrying new information. There is no filler and nothing redundant with the annotations.

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, no-op tool with no output schema, the description covers what it is, what it returns, and what it does not do. An agent has everything needed to decide not to depend on it.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description has nothing it needs to explain about inputs. No parameter information is missing.

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 states exactly what this tool is: a legacy no-op whose name implies logout but which performs no server-side action because engine mode uses Bearer tokens. That is a specific, unambiguous characterization that an agent could not infer from the name 'logout' alone.

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?

It makes clear this tool exists only for backward compatibility and that there is no session to end, which implies callers do not need it. It stops short of an explicit 'do not call' or a stated safe-call guarantee, but the context for using or skipping it is clear.

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