Sign out of Clio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two distinct effects: local token deletion and, with revoke=true, server-side invalidation. It does not state whether the user must re-authenticate afterwards or whether local config survives, which would be useful for a sign-out tool, so it falls short of fully transparent.

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 short sentences, the primary local effect front-loaded, the optional revoke behavior second. No filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials. Minor gaps remain around post-logout state (next call will need re-authentication, whether anything else is cleared), but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 schema already explains revoke (default false, server-side invalidation), so the description's restatement of the same behavior adds little. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: deleting locally stored tokens, plus optional server-side invalidation. That is unambiguous and naturally distinct from the data-CRUD siblings and from clio_authenticate/clio_auth_status. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but none is close enough to be confused.

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 title and description make the intended use (signing out) implied rather than stated, and there is no when/when-not guidance or comparison to clio_authenticate. For a self-evident terminal action this is workable, but the agent gets no explicit routing advice.

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