Sign out

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is removed (cached MSAL accounts) but says nothing about required auth state, whether active sessions or tokens are affected, or reversibility.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated information. It states the verb, resource, and scope immediately without burying the purpose.

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 low-complexity logout tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, because there are no annotations and no usage guidance, it omits contextual details an agent might reasonably expect, such as auth prerequisites or side effects.

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 100% and the single tenantId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default resolution order. The description's 'for the tenant' adds only minor corroboration and no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action (remove) and resource (cached MSAL accounts for the tenant), making the tool's core purpose clear and distinct from cs_login and cs_login_status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent auth tools such as cs_delete_auth_profile, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, when not to call it, or which sibling to use instead. The 'Sign out' title implies a logout context, but the description itself provides no usage guidance or prerequisites.

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