unifi_protect_auth_logout

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the session file is deleted, that the next call will re-authenticate, and that this action is not a lockout. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

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 with no filler. The core action and effect come first, followed by practical use cases. Every phrase earns its place.

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 one-parameter logout tool, the description fully covers behavior, side effects, and usage intent. Annotations and schema cover safety and state-change acknowledgement, so nothing critical 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 documents the sole 'confirm' parameter as requiring an explicit true acknowledgement. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema carries the full meaning.

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 identifies the action ('Drop the cached session and delete the session file') and the resource (cached session/session file). It distinguishes this from auth_login and auth_status by focusing on clearing the session, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases: 'clear a session after changing accounts, or to remove the cookie from disk.' It also clarifies a non-effect ('does not lock anything out'). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the when-to-use guidance is strong enough.

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