Logout iFood MCP

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the crucial detail of exactly what gets destroyed: the tokens.json file. It also reinforces the requirement for explicit user intent, which aligns with the destructive annotation. No contradiction exists, and the description provides valuable context beyond the binary hints.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every word contributes: the resource being cleared and the critical precondition. There is 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 tool's simple destructive nature, the description plus annotations provide sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly. It states what will be cleared and what user condition must be met. The lack of return-value information is minor because the tool is idempotent and no output schema exists.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented response_format parameter, but it does not. It merely restates the explicit_user_intent condition already described in the schema, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: clearing ~/.ifood-mcp/tokens.json. This precisely identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which handle logout or token removal.

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 includes 'Requires explicit_user_intent', which is a key invocation condition, but it does not explicitly state when to use the tool or mention alternatives. Since it is the only logout tool in the sibling list, usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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