horizon_logout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does state the core effect: invalidation of access and refresh tokens. However, it does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, whether errors occur for already-invalidated tokens, or any rate/authorization constraints, leaving partial ambiguity about side effects.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains the essential action and scope with no wasted words. Every part earns its place, and the token scope clarifies exactly what the invalidate operation targets.

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 simple two-parameter logout tool with an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is mostly complete. The main missing piece is usage context relative to horizon_login and horizon_refresh_token, but the core callable semantics are adequately covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions tokens at a high level but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for refresh_token and base_url, such as token format or how to obtain the refresh token.

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 uses a specific verb ('Invalidate') and a clear resource ('current Horizon session') and even names the tokens affected. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like horizon_login and horizon_refresh_token, which create or refresh sessions rather than end them.

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 horizon_refresh_token is for renewal or that logout should be called at session end, leaving the agent to infer the intended use from the name and sibling list.

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