Забыть доступ на этой машине

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description clarifies exactly what is destroyed and, importantly, what is not: the token remains valid after this action. This prevents the agent from assuming the user is fully logged out everywhere.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core action, then adds the essential nuance about token validity. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of title or annotations.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the action, the scope, the limitation, and the remediation path. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description still usefully scopes the action to 'this machine', giving context beyond the empty schema.

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 and resource: it erases the saved token from this machine. It clearly distinguishes this local logout action from broader account or token-revocation operations, and from sibling tools like ychetlab_login and ychetlab_whoami.

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 explicitly explains when this tool is appropriate: when you want to forget access on this machine only. It also gives a clear alternative for the opposite need: to stop the token working everywhere, revoke it in the panel (profile → Integrations).

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