nworks_logout

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true. The description adds crucial context by specifying exactly what is destroyed: stored authentication info and tokens. This goes beyond the annotations' generic 'destructive' flag. The idempotent nature is implied (logout can be called repeatedly), and the description aligns with annotations. No contradiction. A 4 is warranted because it adds behavioral detail without redundancy.

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?

One succinct sentence that states the action and its consequences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Perfectly concise for a simple logout operation.

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 tool with annotations covering safety (destructive, idempotent, readOnly) and no output schema, the description is complete. An agent needs only to know what this does and that it deletes stored credentials, both of which are provided. There's no missing information that would impede a correct call.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description appropriately refrains from adding parameter info, as there are none. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no deduction is needed. The description's focus on the action and its effect on stored state is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 the tool logs out by deleting stored NAVER WORKS authentication info and tokens. The verb 'delete' (삭제) and resource (auth info/tokens) are specific and unambiguous. This distinguishes it from all siblings, especially nworks_login_user and nworks_whoami, which are about authentication 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 implies this should be used when the agent needs to log out of NAVER WORKS, clearing stored credentials. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the tool's unique function (no sibling does logout), the context is clear enough. A 4 is appropriate because there is no ambiguity about its purpose, though explicit conditions could improve it.

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