Sign out of AIR on this machine

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the account is preserved, and an env-supplied AIR_API_KEY cannot be removed here with the result directing the caller to the right place. It doesn't state whether the removal is reversible or what happens on re-run.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and each remaining sentence carries a distinct caveat (account untouched, env-key exception).

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 parameterless, local, destructive action with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is removed, what is preserved, and the one case where it won't work.

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-imposed baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for.

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 ('Remove the AIR credentials') plus precise scope ('stored on this machine'), which distinguishes it from account-level operations such as air_create_account. An agent can immediately tell this is a local credential teardown, not an account deletion.

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?

Gives clear context for use and explicitly bounds the effect ('The account itself is untouched'), and even routes the caller elsewhere for the AIR_API_KEY case. It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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