Teamwork: logout

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive effect (removing the API key from OS keychain and local file) and the follow-up behavior (next tool call will re-prompt for setup). This is transparent for a logout operation, though it could mention whether the remote session is invalidated.

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 with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by the consequence, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 parameterless, destructive logout tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is removed, where it is removed, and what happens next. No critical detail is missing for an agent to call 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 the schema provides complete coverage by definition. The description adds useful context about the side effects, satisfying the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 ('Remove') with a clear resource ('stored Teamwork API key') and states the scope ('from this machine (OS keychain + local file)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auth_status and whoami, which inspect rather than clear authentication state.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when the user wants to remove the stored API key and re-authenticate, as indicated by 'The next tool call will ask to set up again.' However, it does not explicitly contrast this with auth_status or other related tools, nor does it state when not to use it.

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