simplepractice_sign_out

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the crucial caveat that the session is NOT revoked server-side, that no network call is made, that other browser/app/server copies are unaffected, and that re-signing-in reverses it. This resolves the semantic ambiguity around readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false with real consequence detail.

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?

Front-loads the action in the first clause, then spends the remaining sentences on precise scope limits (no revocation, no network call, not global, reversible). Every sentence carries non-redundant information; no 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what is affected, what is not, side-effect scope, and reversibility. Nothing important is omitted.

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 carries no semantic burden and the description correctly does not invent any. Baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing parameter-related to clarify.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Forget the Client Portal session stored on this machine, so this server stops using it.' This is a specific local-state action that is clearly distinct from the sibling sign-in/session tools (request_sign_in_link, session_status, verify_sign_in_*).

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?

Usage is clear from the description: use it when you want this server to stop using a stored local session, and 'signing in again undoes it' implies the reverse path. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or state an exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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