Sign out of Google

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substance beyond them: exactly what is destroyed (locally stored OAuth tokens, revoked server access), the blast radius (every Google Docs tool fails afterward), and the recovery path (call `authenticate` again). That is high-value behavioral context an agent needs before firing a destructive, hard-to-undo action.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effects, then the usage restriction. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding or repetition of the title.

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 destructive tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: effect, scope of damage, prerequisite for recovery, and a usage constraint. No output schema exists, and the description already explains the post-condition, so nothing further is required.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema is empty with additionalProperties=false, making the no-argument contract unambiguous.

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: sign out, revoke this server's Google access, delete locally stored OAuth tokens. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling `authenticate`, which is the inverse operation, and from `get_auth_status`.

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 bounds when to use it: 'Only use it when the user explicitly asks to sign out or switch accounts.' This is a clear when-to-use condition with an implied when-not (do not call it unprompted), leaving nothing to inference.

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