Disconnect FatSecret

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

Annotations already flag it as destructive (destructiveHint=true, readOnly=false). The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what is destroyed (stored FatSecret tokens) and where (this server), clarifying the scope of the operation. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the action and target. No filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and its scope. The destructive nature is reinforced by annotations, 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details. Baseline 4 for no parameters is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('your stored FatSecret tokens from this server'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling auth tools like start_auth/complete_auth, which are about establishing connections, not removing them.

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 purpose is clear enough that when to use it is implied (when you want to revoke stored FatSecret credentials), but it doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as 'use check_auth_status to verify before disconnecting' or 'this does not revoke tokens on FatSecret's side'. Without explicit guidance, it relies on the reader's inference.

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