betadrop_logout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the active token is revoked on the server and local credentials are cleared, which are the key behavioral consequences. It does not cover idempotency or error cases, but the main destructive actions are transparent.

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 filler. It front-loads the primary server-side action and then states the local cleanup, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 parameterless logout tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the operation and its side effects. It omits edge-case behavior such as calling logout when no active token exists, but this is minor for such a simple tool.

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 there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the empty schema fully defines the input surface.

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 a specific verb ('Revoke') and identifies both the server-side token and local credentials, so the action is clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like betadrop_token_delete, but the focus on the 'active token' and local state provides some differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus betadrop_login or betadrop_token_delete, and no mention of prerequisites or expected conditions. The intended use is inferable from the name and effects, but the description does not state it directly.

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