logout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the --no-prompt flag behavior and the irreversibility warning for scratch orgs whose passwords are unavailable. It does not describe the response, but for a logout that is minor.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, parameter routing, execution behavior, and the critical irreversibility warning. The warning is placed last where it lands hardest, and nothing is redundant.

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 nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, execution behavior (--no-prompt) and the key destructive consequence. Return value is undocumented, which is a small gap for a tool whose result is essentially success/failure.

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?

With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: it explains the meaning and interaction of targetOrg and all, including that omitting both causes failure. The nested-object shape is not elaborated further, keeping it below a 5.

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 and resource ('Log out of a Salesforce org') that cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling login_into_org. An agent immediately knows the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent between the two modes: 'Use targetOrg to logout of a specific org, or set all to true to logout of all orgs.' It covers the failure condition when neither is set. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use the tool (e.g. vs. clear_default_org), so it stops short of a 5.

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