avito_logout

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and the description is consistent with them. It adds substantive non-obvious behavior beyond them: the token is NOT revoked server-side and auto-reconnection is blocked until the next login, which is exactly the kind of side-effect boundary an agent needs.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste, front-loading the primary action and immediately following with the important non-action boundary. Every clause earns its place.

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-param, no-output-schema logout tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description supplies the one thing that matters: the exact scope of the side effect (local only, token intact). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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+resource ('Effacer la session locale') and immediately scopes the action by naming what it does not do ('Ne révoque pas le jeton côté Avito'). An agent can distinguish it from avito_session_status and avito_login without inspecting anything else.

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 reconnection behavior is tied explicitly to the sibling flow ('jusqu'au prochain avito_login'), which tells the agent the natural sequencing. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use vs alternative statement, but the context is clear for a terminal logout action.

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