clear_facebook_credentials

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It precisely specifies the file path, the exact operation ('Delete'), and the resulting state (credential file removed). This gives the agent clear expectations about the tool's side effects, which is adequate for a simple file deletion.

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, action-first sentence that directly states the verb and the resource. There is no filler or redundant text; every word contributes to understanding. It is perfectly sized for its simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, no annotations, and is a straightforward file deletion, the description covers all necessary operational details: what is deleted and where. While it could mention the impact on subsequent operations (e.g., requiring re-authentication), that is not essential for calling it correctly. The description is complete enough for the agent to execute the action.

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 is effectively empty. The description adds necessary context by explaining what the tool operates on (the credentials file path). Since there are no parameters to document, the description provides the only semantic information available, which is sufficient.

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 action (delete), the resource (stored credentials file), and its exact location (~/.facebook-automata-mcp/credentials.json). It is specific and unambiguous, and clearly distinguishes this tool from credential-setting and checking siblings.

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?

While the description unequivocally indicates the tool's purpose (deleting credentials), it does not explicitly state when to use it relative to alternatives like set_facebook_credentials or check_facebook_credentials. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., must be authenticated) or when deletion is appropriate, but the action is self-evident enough that the lack of explicit guidance is acceptable.

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