Sign out of BriefGate

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the local removal, the server-side DELETE call, the best-effort revocation behavior, what happens when the revoke fails, and where to revoke manually if needed. This aligns with and enriches destructiveHint and readOnlyHint rather than merely repeating them.

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?

Three compact sentences pack in the action, the HTTP detail, the failure mode, the fallback guidance, and the availability constraint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it covers what happens, how it happens, what happens on failure, and when it cannot be used. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the description correctly focuses on behavior instead of inventing parameter details.

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 states a specific action: remove the locally stored API key and best-effort revoke it on the server. It also distinguishes itself by explaining exactly what is modified, so an agent can clearly tell logout from the sibling login tool.

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 provides clear behavioral context and an explicit when-not: the tool is unavailable on the shared hosted endpoint. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but for a logout operation the purpose is unambiguous and the failure mode is fully explained.

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