Se déconnecter de viraldar

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it discloses that the session is revoked remotely and that a specific local file is destroyed, making the destructive and auth-affecting nature explicit. It does not state what happens if no session exists (idempotency) or that subsequent calls will fail until re-authentication, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and then adds the two material details (remote revocation target, local file path). Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema logout tool, the definition covers the essential facts: what is revoked, what is deleted, and what is deliberately left untouched. Only the post-condition (subsequent calls will fail until connexion is run) is left implicit.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. No parameter meaning is required or 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 names a specific verb ("Déconnecte"), the exact resource (the MCP's session with viraldar), and enumerates the two concrete effects: server-side session revocation and deletion of ~/.config/viraldar/session.json. The parenthetical "(pas celle du navigateur)" cleanly separates it from the browser session, so an agent can distinguish it from connexion and from anything else that touches auth state.

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 clear from the verb plus the explicit scope exclusion: this ends the MCP's own session only, not the browser's. It does not spell out a trigger condition (e.g. 'call when you want to end the session or when credentials are stale') or point back to connexion for re-authentication, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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