meiju_logout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes beyond them by disclosing that a shared saved login is also forgotten and that pending login pages are invalidated, plus explicit non-effects. It still omits prerequisites such as needing an active session and whether re-login is required afterward.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core effect and followed by the scope limits; every clause carries information. Slightly clipped phrasing with the parenthetical '(if shared)' but no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the critical risk information (what is and is not invalidated) is present for this simple 0-param mutation. Only the session prerequisite is unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 the schema (100% coverage) fully carries parameter semantics and the description has nothing to add. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Forget this session and its saved login') and scopes the resource further with 'invalidate pending login pages'. It clearly distinguishes the operation from adjacent concerns (device unbinding, the official app's login, AC settings) even though it does not name sibling tools like meiju_list_devices by name.

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's exclusion sentence effectively tells the agent when NOT to reach for this tool: it will not unbind devices, revoke the official app login, or change AC settings. That is strong negative routing, but it never states the positive trigger (end/clear the current session) or names a concrete alternative tool for those other tasks.

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