Logout

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description earns credit mainly for the non-obvious scope statement that client-configured header credentials survive the call, plus the response shape. The idempotency mention is somewhat redundant with idempotentHint, and no auth/permission requirements are stated.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return value, then the caveat. Every clause carries distinct information an agent needs.

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 no-parameter session-teardown tool this is nearly complete: scope, side effects, idempotency and return value are all covered, and an output schema exists. The only shortfall is the missing contrast with revoke_api_key, which matters for choosing the right teardown tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly avoids inventing inputs and instead documents the scope of the credential being removed.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (the TronSave login) plus the exact scope: the credential bound to this MCP connection, with the two credential types (api-key or signature) named. An agent can immediately tell this apart from account-level siblings like revoke_api_key or generate_api_key.

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?

Clear context is given: this clears the session credential for this MCP connection only, and header credentials configured on the client are explicitly unaffected, which is a useful exclusion. The one gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the sibling revoke_api_key, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this operation.

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