neurover_logout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is somewhat covered. But the description adds nothing beyond restating the name: it does not say whether credentials or cached tokens are cleared, whether other devices' sessions are terminated, whether the call fails if no session exists, or what the caller must do afterwards. For a state-changing auth operation this is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, so it is front-loaded and efficient. But its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing, leaving it barely at the minimum-viable level.

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 an auth-state mutation with an undocumented optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify session scope, side effects, and expected result. None of that is present, so an agent cannot reliably decide when to call it or what to expect.

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 single 'account' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The most important semantic question — whether logout applies to a specific account or to all accounts — is completely unanswered, so the agent cannot know how to populate or omit the 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 sentence 'Выйти из сессии MCP' gives a verb (log out) and a resource (MCP session), so an agent can tell it is a session-termination action. However, it never distinguishes it from the sibling neurover_login / neurover_auth_status / neurover_accounts beyond the obvious opposite, and the scope of 'session' (one account vs all) is left undefined.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of neurover_login as the counterpart, and no indication of prerequisites such as whether a session must be active first. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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