logout_cpanel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add meaningful context: credentials are removed from 'this computer' (local credential store), not merely a server-side session. However, it does not say whether the server session is invalidated, what happens if no credentials are saved, or whether an error is surfaced — significant gaps for a credential-destroying operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action ('Disconnect and remove') leads and the object and scope follow. Nothing is wasted, though it is also too terse to carry behavioral nuance.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely sufficient: it conveys both the action and that stored credentials are deleted. The missing pieces are behavioral edge cases (not-logged-in behavior, whether the server session is also closed) rather than structural gaps.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document. The description adds nothing that could conflict with the empty schema.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Disconnect and remove') with a precise resource ('saved cPanel credentials'), which is unambiguous and naturally the inverse of the sibling login_cpanel. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope relative to get_login_status, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 implied by the name and phrase 'Disconnect' — an agent can infer this is the session-ending counterpart to login_cpanel. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or stated precondition (e.g., whether an active session is required), so guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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