Log out

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing both server-side revocation and local token deletion, and it explains the post-condition that re-authentication is needed. This provides rich behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, with no contradictions.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that pack essential information: the core action and the crucial consequence. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's impact and side effects. It tells the agent exactly what to expect, including the need to re-login, making it complete in context.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 applies as the description fully clarifies the tool's behavior.

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 uses specific verbs 'Revokes' and 'deletes' to identify the action, and clearly specifies the resources affected: the server session and locally stored token. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like pushengage_auth_login and pushengage_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?

The description explicitly states the consequence for subsequent tool usage: all site-scoped tools require a fresh login. This gives clear guidance on when the tool is appropriate and what will follow, though it does not explicitly reference alternative tools like auth_status. This is strong contextual guidance.

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