Выйти из панели

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), the description discloses specific behavioral details: it erases saved access from the machine and requires re-login to continue. This specifies exactly what is destroyed and the resulting state, which is valuable context for the agent.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds meaning: what the tool does, what it erases, and the consequence. No unnecessary filler.

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 simple logout tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all relevant aspects: the action, the scope (this client, this machine), the destructive nature (erasing saved access), and the need to log in again. Annotations already provide the safety profile, so no further detail is needed.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter explanations. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not introduce any misleading parameter information.

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 a specific action: 'Завершает сессию этого клиента в панели' (ends this client's session) and 'стирает сохранённый доступ с машины' (erases saved access from the machine). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like operbots_login (opposite action) and sessions_revoke (revoking other sessions) by focusing on the local client and machine-scoped 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 provides clear context: it is used for logging out the current client and clearing stored access. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not conditions, but the scope ('этого клиента', 'с машины') makes the usage situation clear. The consequence 'придётся войти заново' reinforces the expected behavior.

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