aureon_logout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two concrete effects (session revocation plus clearing the in-process token), which is genuine behavioral detail, but omits whether the call is idempotent, what happens if the token is already invalid, and what errors may surface.

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 no filler; the primary action (revoke) leads and the side effect (clear in-process token) follows. Every word earns its place.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers the core action adequately, but with zero annotations it should say more about post-call state (e.g., subsequent authenticated calls will fail, token no longer usable) to be fully actionable.

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?

Zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is misrepresented or omitted at the parameter level.

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 (Revoke) and resource (current Bearer session) plus a secondary effect (clear in-process token). The 'Bearer session' framing distinguishes it from aureon_revoke_api_key, though the description doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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?

Logout usage is implied — an agent can infer it should be called to end a session — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no note on prerequisites (must be authenticated), and no pointer to sibling auth tools like aureon_dev_login for re-authenticating.

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