auth_logout

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorld=true. The description adds important context beyond that: it disconnects all tables (scope of impact) and only removes the local login, not the website session. It stops short of stating whether credentials/tokens are cleared or whether it requires an authenticated session.

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 action and followed by the key caveat. No wasted words.

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 zero-param, no-output logout tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential scope and the crucial web-revocation distinction. It could say more about what happens to local credentials or sessions, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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 baseline 4 applies. The description correctly reflects that no inputs are needed and adds no misleading parameter hints.

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?

Specific verb+resource: disconnect all tables and remove the local login. The scope ('all tables') differentiates it from table_disconnect, and the note about website revocation distinguishes it from auth-related siblings.

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?

Clearly implies this is the local logout path and warns that web revocation is a separate operation, which prevents an agent from using it expecting a full revoke. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the scope distinction is enough context.

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