wetrack_sign_out

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying side effects. It explicitly discloses the destructive action of clearing the session token, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention reversibility or server-side effects, but for a sign-out tool this is sufficient.

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, direct sentence that front-loads the primary action and follows with the key side effect. No filler or redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what the tool does and its main consequence. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is unnecessary; the schema already declares an empty object. The mention of 'current session token' is behavioral context, not a parameter.

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 clear action ('Sign out') and a specific resource ('WeTrack'), plus the concrete effect ('clear the current session token'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like wetrack_sign_in and wetrack_set_token.

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 the tool is for ending an active WeTrack session and invalidating the stored token. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the single sign-out action among many authentication-related siblings makes the usage context obvious.

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