Disconnect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says the tool ends the session on the server and forgets the stored token – both are state changes that terminate access and erase credentials. That directly contradicts the read-only / non-destructive annotation profile, which is the exact mismatch this dimension is meant to catch.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action ('end the session') comes first and the side effect ('forget the stored token') follows. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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-output tool this covers the essentials: what it does and that the token is discarded. It could add one clause about the consequence (subsequent calls require re-authentication), and the annotation conflict noted above leaves the agent's safety model uncertain.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema cannot be underspecified and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are required and adds nothing misleading about arguments.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: end the server-side session and discard the stored token. An agent can immediately tell this is the inverse of the sibling 'login'. It stops short of 5 only because it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 rather than stated: an agent infers it should call this when it is finished with the session. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to 'login' as the counterpart operation, which for a 38-sibling server would be cheap to add.

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