mhlb_session_reset

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds crucial context: it discards a cached token (a specific action) and explains the consequence (next call re-authenticates). This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the exact behavioral effect without contradicting them.

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 sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the action ('Discard the cached token'), immediately explains the purpose, and then provides the usage conditions. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does, why it exists, and when to invoke it. There is no missing information an agent would need to call 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 is empty. The description provides no parameter details (none needed). With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds nothing that would lower it. It's appropriate that no parameter information is given.

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 ('Discard') and a specific resource ('cached My Hot Lunchbox access token'), and explains the effect ('so the next tool call signs in again'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all operational actions; this is the only session-management tool.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'after changing credentials, or if calls start failing with stale-session errors.' This gives clear, actionable conditions with no ambiguity. No alternative tool exists for this purpose, so no need to mention alternatives.

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