credential_logout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it does disclose that this is destructive and that re-login is required afterwards, which is the key consequence. It omits other material traits such as whether the deletion is reversible, whether it affects all platforms or only one, and whether confirmation is expected.

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 short sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and the consequence attached parenthetically. Nothing extraneous, though the parenthetical construction is slightly less scannable than a plain clause.

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?

Wait — reassess: the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and only one parameter, but the description leaves the per-service scope unaddressed against a schema that demands it. For a destructive no-annotation tool, that is a real gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the required 'service' parameter, so the enum of qq_music/netease/kugou must be discovered from the schema alone. Worse, 'a shared credential file' (singular, unspecified scope) is ambiguous against a schema that requires targeting one platform, so the description adds no meaning and mildly invites misreading of scope.

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 ('Delete a shared credential file'), which is immediately distinguishable from sibling credential tools like credential_refresh and credential_status. It doesn't name a sibling or explicitly frame itself as the logout counterpart, but the destructiveness is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical 'requires re-login afterwards' implies this should be used only when the user intends to fully disconnect, which is useful implied guidance. However it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing versus credential_refresh (re-authenticate) or credential_status (inspect), leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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