logout

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

With no annotations provided (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that this mutates local config state by deleting the stored key, and importantly clarifies the distinction between local logout and server-side revocation — this prevents the agent from assuming the credential is fully deactivated. It doesn't contradict any 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?

The description is two sentences and every word earns its place. The first sentence states the primary action and target file path. The second sentence adds a critical caveat about server-side validity that prevents a dangerous misconception. No filler, no 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the action, the file modified, and the important caveat about server-side key validity. The only minor gap is not stating what the return value of logout looks like (success/failure), but with no output schema and a simple side-effect operation, the current description is largely 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately explains what the (non-existent) parameters would control — nothing needs explaining. The description's value here is in the side-effect explanation rather than parameter semantics, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states what the tool does: disconnects the client by deleting the stored MisarReach API key from a specific file path (~/.misarreach/config.json). It uses a specific verb (disconnect/delete) with an explicit resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auth_status and login by being the logout counterpart.

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 makes clear when this should be used (to disconnect the client) and provides important exclusion context: it notes the key stays valid on the server and instructs revoking it in Settings → API keys to fully retire it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of when to use vs. not use is clear.

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