douyin_account_logout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it names the exact file affected, its role as the login credential, the irreversible effect (account returns to logged-out), and explicitly scopes out collateral damage (project dir, materials, published works unaffected). This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before triggering a destructive confirmation flow.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, then the workflow, then the scope caveat. Dense but every clause carries operational weight; the ★ markers aid scanning. Slightly long, but justified by the destructive nature of the 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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers effect, confirmation discipline, post-condition, and non-effects — everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 coverage is 100%, so both params are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds real semantics beyond the schema by defining confirm's role as a two-phase safety gate rather than a plain boolean.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (重置某账号登录态) and immediately clarifies the exact mechanism: deleting a single cookies file, not uninstalling. It also distinguishes itself from account_login/account_status by describing the resulting state and the 'logout not uninstall' boundary.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-step workflow: with no confirm it only reports the intended path (dry run), and confirm=true may only be passed after the user explicitly agrees. It further gives the follow-up condition (must re-scan QR before publishing), leaving nothing to inference.

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