退出登录

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly given. The description still adds real value: by saying '本连接器保存的', it narrows the destructive effect to this connector's stored credentials and shows that the logout is not account-wide, which is context the annotations cannot express. It does not explain what token or cookie storage is removed or whether the user can recover the session.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. The scope qualifier ('本连接器保存的') appears before the object and does the most important work of preventing the agent from reading this as an account-wide logout.

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, non-open-world mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the scope of what is cleared and that it is idempotent. It could be slightly more complete by noting the need to re-authenticate afterwards, but nothing critical 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 and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing to interpret. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. A baseline of 4 applies to zero-parameter tools.

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 (clear) and an explicit object (the NetEase Cloud login state stored by this connector). That clearly sets it apart from read-oriented siblings such as get_login_status and login_qr_start. It does not mention any sibling by name, but the action it performs is unambiguous.

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 never says when to call this tool and when not to, or which tool to use instead. It does not mention the prerequisite of having an active session, and it does not mention that afterwards the user must run login_qr_start again. As a result, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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