Auth Logout

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

With no annotations at all, the description shoulders the full disclosure burden and does a good job: it names the external endpoint (DELETE /token), states that the token pair is invalidated, and lists what is destroyed locally (stored tokens, local profile). The remaining gap is that irreversibility and post-logout auth state aren't stated, so an agent must assume both.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect, followed by the mechanism and the mutation guard. Nothing is padded or restated from the schema.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers the externally visible consequences and the confirmation requirement, which is close to complete. It stops short of stating whether the action is reversible or what the caller should do next, which matters for a logout.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single confirm parameter has no description in the schema, but the description compensates by stating "requires confirm=True" — the one semantic detail an agent needs beyond the bare boolean. It doesn't say what happens when confirm is false or omitted (silent no-op vs. error), leaving a small ambiguity.

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 names a specific verb+resource pair ("Revoke the hh.ru OAuth token") and adds a second concrete effect ("delete the local profile"), which clearly separates it from the auth siblings auth_get_login_url, auth_exchange_code, and auth_status. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition for invocation ("requires confirm=True"), which is the key gating rule for calling it. It does not name alternatives or say what to do afterward (e.g., re-run auth_get_login_url to re-authenticate), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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