switch_logout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral facts: the HTTP method used (GET /Logout.htm), idempotent behavior when unauthenticated, and explicit non-mutation of switch settings. It omits auth prerequisites and error/failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the idempotency caveat and the mutation disclaimer. Every sentence earns its place; none restates the name or schema.

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-arg, no-output-schema lifecycle tool, the description covers action, idempotency, and side-effect profile adequately. Remaining gaps (auth requirement, behavior on failure) are minor but real for a session-management operation.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to add or omit. The description correctly introduces no phantom arguments.

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 ("End any lingering session") with the underlying endpoint named, making it trivially distinguishable from switch_login and switch_check_auth. An agent knows exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 a clear behavioral condition for use ("no-op if not currently logged in"), which is effectively guidance on when calling it is meaningful. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or an exclusion, so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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