identity_post_auth_logout

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

Annotations already state it's a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the token source is the 'ex-identity-auth-token' header, the token is optional ('if supplied'), and an URL is returned for navigation. The Anonymous access policy is also disclosed, though the response payload isn't fully described.

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 deprecation notice is correctly front-loaded, but the body contains a markdown table and a raw URI that push important details further down. The text is short overall yet structured more like generated OpenAPI documentation than agent-optimized guidance.

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?

With annotations covering safety and a simple one-parameter schema, the description supplies what's missing: deprecation status, migration path, token source, and return URL. It could name the replacement sibling tool more directly, but the operational picture is complete enough to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and there's only one optional parameter, so structured data handles most of it. The description adds useful nuance: the token is taken from the 'ex-identity-auth-token' header and is optional ('if supplied'), which clarifies behavior of the lone parameter beyond the schema's generic description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Performs logout') and explicitly names its replacement (the deprecated endpoint) so its identity is clear. Sibling tools include plenty of identity/provider endpoints, but the phrase 'auth/logout' plus the deprecation note pins down the resource and disambiguates from provider_logout_current_session.

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 '[DEPRECATED]' banner plus 'Use this API instead: /cloudapi/1.0.0/sessions/current' gives clear migration guidance, though the replacement is given as a raw URI rather than a sibling tool name. There's no note about when this deprecated endpoint is still acceptable, so guidance is present but incomplete.

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