Clear local 99 token

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing the exact file path that will be removed and the explicit user-intent guardrail. No contradiction 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?

Two short sentences state the action, target, and precondition with no filler. The critical user-intent requirement is front-loaded.

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 logout tool, and the description covers what is deleted and when it is allowed. With annotations covering idempotence and destructiveness, the definition is complete enough; only success/return behavior is omitted, which is not essential here.

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 explicit_user_intent parameter is described in the schema, and the description merely reinforcs it. The response_format parameter lacks a description and the description adds nothing about it; however, the schema's enums and default provide enough guidance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Deletes') and names the exact resource (~/.ninenine-mcp/tokens.json), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the unique file path and logout title distinguish it well enough.

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 states the key precondition: 'Requires explicit_user_intent,' telling the agent when it is permissible to invoke this destructive tool. It does not mention alternative tools for related actions, but gives sufficient context for safe invocation.

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