logoff_sessions

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the most important behavioral trait: the operation closes all running applications in the session and loses unsaved data. It also adds the practical instruction to confirm with the user before calling. While it omits permission requirements or idempotency details, the central risk of a destructive logoff action is clearly conveyed.

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 exceptionally efficient. The action statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence delivers the necessary caution in plain language. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

Given that the output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, the main missing element would be a description of the return format, which is already covered by the output schema. The description adequately handles the essential context for a destructive tool: it states what it does, warns about irreversible data loss, and instructs user confirmation. It is not rated 5 because it does not provide guidance on selection among siblings, but that is a separate dimension.

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 input schema already documents both session_ids and forced, including the default behavior of forced. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameters beyond the schema. Its 'one or more user sessions' line does echo session_ids but adds nothing substantive.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Log off one or more user sessions'. It also conveys the consequence ('terminating their running applications'), which helps differentiate it from a mere disconnect. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as disconnect_sessions or reset_or_restart_sessions, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 guidance on when this tool should be used versus alternatives like disconnect_sessions, reset_or_restart_sessions, or end_remote_application. The caution does imply that the operation is final and disruptive, but it does not state, for example, 'use this when the user wants to end their session entirely' or 'prefer disconnect_sessions if applications should keep running'. Without these cues, an agent may struggle to select the correct tool.

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