Log out

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them by naming exactly what is destroyed (the local credentials file, every stored account key), what is not (the server-side key is not revoked), and the interaction with GAMEALIA_API_KEY keeping calls authenticated. That is precisely the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then the server-side caveat, then the environment-variable nuance and the alternative. No filler or repetition.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the destructive effect, recoverability posture (key not revoked), idempotency, environment interaction, and the alternative tool. Nothing material to calling it 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 takes no parameters, so the schema imposes nothing to explain and the description correctly spends no words on inputs. It uses the space instead for behavioral caveats, which is the right allocation.

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 scope ("Logs out on this machine") and immediately specifies the mechanism: deleting the local credentials file and cancelling a pending login. Explicitly says it is local only, which distinguishes it from any server-side session concept and from siblings like gamealia_login.

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 a concrete routing rule: "To change account, use gamealia_accounts instead," naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. Also clarifies that repeating is safe. It stops short of stating when logging out is unnecessary or undesirable, so it is clear rather than exhaustive.

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