vk_post_user_3a307fd77361

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the destructive behavior: it destroys the current session and clears the refresh token cookie. It also states that authentication is required and explains the parameter alias conventions. This goes beyond a simple 'Logout' and gives the agent awareness of side effects, though it omits details like response format or irreversibility beyond the destructive effect.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'Logout.' Each sentence contributes necessary information: the endpoint, side effects, parameter handling note, alias conventions, and authentication requirement. There is no redundant or fluff content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, side effects, authentication, and parameter conventions. However, it does not mention response/error codes and leaves a minor ambiguity about path/query parameters relative to the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for a logout operation.

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 schema has only one optional 'body' parameter with a description, giving 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the JSON payload goes in the body field and adds useful context about path/query parameters being top-level fields and accepting camelCase/snake_case aliases. This adds value beyond the schema, though the claim about top-level path/query parameters slightly conflicts with the schema's additionalProperties=false.

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 immediately states 'Logout' and specifies the exact REST endpoint 'POST /user/logout', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also mentions the concrete effects of destroying the session and clearing the refresh token cookie, clearly distinguishing this from other user-related POST endpoints among the siblings.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever a logout operation is needed. It provides context such as authentication being required and the raw proxy nature, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Still, the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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