outlook_sign_out

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

The description discloses the core behavior—clearing cached tokens—but with no annotations, it carries the full burden. It does not explain side effects (e.g., requiring re-authentication) or whether server-side tokens are also invalidated, leaving ambiguity about its impact.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action and scope, earning the maximum score for conciseness.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action and scope. However, it omits any context about the user's expectations after sign-out (e.g., whether they need to log in again), which would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('cached Microsoft tokens'), and the scope ('for this MCP server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like outlook_login and outlook_auth_status by describing the sign-out/cleanup 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used when a user wants to log out or switch accounts, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites.

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