session_logout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot express: the session is terminated server-side, the device vanishes from the phone, stored messages survive on disk, and reversal requires re-pairing.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded, followed by the two consequences that matter (session closed on WhatsApp, local messages retained) and the reversibility caveat. No 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations cover destructiveness/idempotency. The description supplies the durable side effects an agent needs to warn the user about; the only missing piece is the account parameter's expected format and any auth prerequisite.

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?

There is one required parameter ('account') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does no work to compensate — it says an account is unlinked but never indicates what identifier form is expected (phone number, JID, account id) or how to obtain it. With a lookup tool like list_accounts as a sibling, this is a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (unlinking an account, closing the WhatsApp-side session and removing the device) rather than restating the tool name 'session_logout'. The parenthetical clarifies the mechanism, which is more informative than the name alone, though it never names the sibling session_pair that performs the inverse action.

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?

Gives clear operative context: the change is irreversible and requires a new pairing, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate versus session_pair. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead' routing statement or any precondition (e.g. which account must be paired first).

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