auth_logout

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: it clears cached credentials only, and explicitly states that environment-variable API keys remain untouched. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the exact scope of the destructive action and its irreversibility implications.

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 long, with the primary action and effect in the first sentence, and a crucial caveat in the second. Every word earns its place; no redundant phrases or vague language.

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, side-effect-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it does, what it doesn't do, and the boundary of its effect. It is complete and leaves no major behavioral questions unanswered.

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 zero parameters and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters, which is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Disconnect') and resource ('this MCP server from your OpenEphemeris account'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling auth tools like auth_login and auth_status. It also states the mechanism ('clearing cached credentials'), making the tool's 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 implies usage context (disconnecting/logging out) and explicitly notes when not to rely on it: it does NOT revoke API keys set via environment variables. This exclusion helps an agent decide if this tool is appropriate given the environment configuration, though it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for full key revocation.

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