simplepractice_sign_out

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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, indicating a mutating but idempotent operation. The description adds that the action affects local state only, which is helpful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether server-side session is invalidated) or behavior when no session exists. It adds some value without contradicting annotations.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the essential action and includes the meaningful qualifier 'from local state.' Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, and it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.

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, no output schema, straightforward action), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what the tool does and its scope. However, it could optionally mention the effect on the user's authentication state (e.g., requiring re-authentication), but that is not essential for correct invocation. The description covers the core functional requirements.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters since none exist. It effectively communicates that no arguments are required, which is sufficient.

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 clearly states the action: 'Discard the stored Client Portal session from local state.' It specifies the verb (discard), the resource (session), and the scope (local state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like simplepractice_session_status (which checks status) and simplepractice_request_sign_in_link (which initiates sign-in). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used when a user explicitly logs out, nor does it contrast with other session-related tools. The tool's purpose is implied by its name and description, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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