logout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does this well: it says the action is 'best-effort,' explicitly clarifies that local tokens are always cleared even if remote revocation fails, and names the underlying mutation. This is strong behavioral transparency, especially for a mutating/session-changing operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the nuance about best-effort revocation. It earns its place, though the parenthetical could have been a separate sentence for readability. It is still concise and well structured.

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 covers the key aspects: what it does and what happens on failure. It could mention what the response looks like, but since there is no output schema, adding the response format would be helpful. The core behavior is fully covered though.

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 are no parameter semantics to add beyond the schema. The description appropriately notes what is cleared and the mutation used, but with no parameters there's nothing more to explain. Baseline is a 3 here since schema coverage is 100% and no parameters exist.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Log out of Jobber,' with an explicit mechanism (the appDisconnect mutation). The title 'logout' is expanded into a full statement of what happens, so an agent knows the tool's function, and it is clearly distinct from siblings like authenticate and auth_status.

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 implies a clear context: use this when ending an authenticated session. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'if you need to check authentication state, use auth_status'), but for a logout tool the usage context is fairly evident. The description could have been clearer about whether it is the only way to deauthenticate or if there is another related flow.

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