Clear local ClickBus token

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the deletion behavior is disclosed. The description adds the specific file path and the requirement for explicit_user_intent, which is important behavioral context beyond the structured annotations. It does not mention recovery or side effects, but for a simple local token deletion, the provided information is adequate.

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?

Two short sentences, each carrying essential information. The action and target are front-loaded, and the critical prerequisite (explicit user intent) is stated immediately after. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

This is a simple destructive action with a single clear effect. The schema and annotations cover the parameters and destruction hint, and the description states the file path and intent gate. It lacks explicit mention of return value or success/failure reporting, but for this simple operation the current detail is mostly sufficient—an agent can safely call it knowing what happens.

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 description itself does not describe parameters, but the schema provides good coverage: both parameters are optional with defaults and clear descriptions. The explicit_user_intent parameter is directly tied to the description's 'requires explicit_user_intent' note, adding meaning. The response_format parameter is standard and its enum is self-explanatory, so no extra description is needed.

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?

Explicitly states the action ('Deletes') and the exact resource (~/.clickbus-mcp/tokens.json). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clickbus_book or clickbus_search_trips, which operate on different resources. The title also conveys logout, reinforcing the purpose.

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 the tool is for logging out by deleting the local ClickBus token, which is a clear context for use. It does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that any agent would understand this is the logout action. The requirement for explicit user intent is a strong usage constraint.

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