logout_client_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral effect (clearing authentication context) and scope (session-level), which is adequate for a simple operation. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like whether this affects other tools' operations, if re-authentication is required afterward, or what happens to in-progress operations.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 (0 parameters, has output schema), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for an authentication-related operation, it could benefit from slightly more detail about consequences or typical usage patterns.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the empty input schema is self-explanatory for a parameterless operation.

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 specific action ('Clear') and the resource ('active authenticated client context for this MCP server session'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'login_with_client_id' and 'current_client_context' by being the inverse operation that removes authentication state rather than establishing or querying it.

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 by specifying 'active authenticated client context' and 'this MCP server session', suggesting it should be used when authentication needs to be terminated. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like 'login_with_client_id' for re-authentication scenarios.

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