Log Out

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the post-condition is a reverted guest session and the blast radius excludes the web app account, which tells the agent exactly what is and isn't destroyed.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and each following sentence adds a distinct constraint (resulting state, blast radius).

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 and annotations already covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what the call does, the resulting session state, and the scope boundary. Nothing material 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter behavior is described, but none exists to describe.

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 (log out) plus the resource/scope (your GlassyPic account), and immediately clarifies the resulting state (guest session) and the account boundary (web app account unaffected). That boundary is what separates this from a generic global logout and from the inverse sibling 'login'.

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?

Usage is implied by the session semantics rather than stated: an agent can infer it ends the current GlassyPic session. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing and no mention of the obvious alternative sibling (login to re-establish a session).

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