logout

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two behaviors an agent could not otherwise know: the logout endpoint is only called 'if configured' (consistent with openWorldHint=true), and omitting 'profile' logs out every profile of the service. There is mild tension between 'delete the local session' and destructiveHint=false, but logout of one's own session is a reversible, intended action rather than a destructive update, so it is not a clear contradiction. It still omits what happens on failure or whether re-authentication is required.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its main effect, then the scope rule for the optional parameter. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and only broad annotations, the description covers purpose, external-call conditionality, and scope behavior. It remains incomplete on the required 'service' identifier format and on failure/partial-failure behavior when logging out all profiles.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully explains 'profile' semantics (absent = all profiles logged out), which is real added value, but it says nothing about the required 'service' parameter's identifier form or how it relates to list_services output. Half the parameters remain ambiguous.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Log out of a service') plus the core side effect ('delete the local session'), so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling forget_session, which overlaps in the session-removal space, 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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is the logout action and explains the scope effect of omitting 'profile'. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and the closely related sibling forget_session is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer which one to choose.

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