Log out

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it drops the cached token and causes the next authenticated call to log in again from configured credentials. This clarifies the side effects and reinforces why the tool is non-destructive. No contradiction exists.

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 exactly two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the consequence/use case following. Every clause contributes meaningful information, with no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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-parameter logout tool, the description covers the mechanism (server-side invalidation), the immediate effect (token drop), the future behavior (re-auth on next call), and the intended use case (force fresh session). The output schema exists, so return-value details are not necessary. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description need not add anything here, and it appropriately remains silent.

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 states a specific action: invalidate the current Repovive session server-side and drop the cached token from the MCP server. This is a clear verb (invalidate/drop) and resource (session/token), and it is easily distinguished from all sibling tools, including identity-query tools like repovive_whoami.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'use it to force a fresh session.' It also explains the consequential behavior (next authenticated call re-authenticates from configured credentials), providing the agent with decision context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool's operation is unique enough that this is not a material gap.

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