logout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that the tool modifies a specific local file and explicitly notes that it does NOT revoke the key on the server, giving the agent a clear understanding of the tool's exact effects and limitations.

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 two sentences that front-load the primary action and immediately follow with a critical clarification. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description covers all necessary context: what it does, where it operates, and what it intentionally does not do. This is a complete and self-contained description.

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 has zero parameters, so parameter explanation is unnecessary. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters and the description is clear about the tool's function.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Remove the saved ThumbAPI API key from ~/.thumbapi/config.json') and clearly distinguishes itself from server-side revocation with the explicit note 'Does not revoke the key on the server.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from sibling tools like login and generate_thumbnail.

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 explicitly clarifies when this tool is appropriate (local logout) and when it is not (server-side revocation, which is a separate dashboard action). This provides clear usage boundaries and prevents misuse.

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