Disconnect Garmin Locally

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context: it deletes a local token file (not account-level) and does not change the Garmin account. This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the scope and safety profile of the destructive action.

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, front-loads the core action, and includes necessary clarifications without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's straightforward nature (single action), the description covers the key points: what it does, what it doesn't do, and the prerequisite. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use safely.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50% (explicit_user_intent has description, response_format does not). The description adds semantic meaning to explicit_user_intent by framing it as a safety gate, but provides no additional info for response_format. Since the enum and default are self-explanatory, a score of 3 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 clearly states 'Delete the local Garmin token file', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on local disconnection without affecting the Garmin account, making its unique purpose evident.

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 'use only when the user explicitly wants to disconnect this MCP' and emphasizes the explicit_user_intent requirement. While clear on when to use, it does not provide guidance on when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (mostly read-oriented) indirectly clarifies usage.

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