iptime_logout

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds some useful context by specifying that the operation terminates the router admin session, but it stops short of explaining consequences like requiring a re-login or invalidating credentials. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no filler and a clear subject-verb-object structure. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter logout operation.

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?

The tool is simple, the one optional parameter is fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists to explain. Still, the description lacks explicit usage routing and behavioral side-effect context, so it is minimally complete rather than fully self-sufficient.

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?

The schema fully describes the only parameter, router_id, including its optionality when exactly one router exists, so the description does not need to repeat it. The description itself says nothing about parameters, leaving semantics entirely to the schema.

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 names a concrete action ('End') and a clear resource ('the router admin session'), directly stating what the tool does. It also reads as the counterpart to sibling iptime_login, so an agent can distinguish it from status, read, and plan tools without opening the schema.

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 about when to call this tool or when to prefer a sibling; it does not mention that it should follow admin operations or that it will invalidate the authenticated session. The only cue is the tool name and sibling context, which is not explicit enough.

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