logout

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the exact behavior (removing stored key) and the edge case that environment-provided keys are unaffected. This is valuable operational information an agent needs before invoking.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that delivers the core action first and the fallback limitation second. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or 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 simple no-parameter logout tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the limitation, and the persistent fallback behavior. It does not mention return values, but given the simplicity and destructive nature, the absence is not a significant gap.

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 takes zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 because there is no parameter behavior to explain. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate.

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 the action: 'Remove the stored Splitwise API key' and equates it with 'log out'. It names the specific resource (stored API key) and is distinct from siblings like setup_auth and get_auth_status.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to remove a stored key) and importantly identifies a key limitation: environment-provided keys cannot be removed and remain active as fallback. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the use case is clear.

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