Clear Withings Local Access

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds context by specifying that it deletes the local token file and that it only clears local access (not full API revocation). This provides valuable behavioral insight beyond the 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?

The description is two sentences long, covering key points: the action, its scope (local-only), and the gating condition. No extraneous information, 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 two parameters (one with enum), destructive nature, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and the gating condition. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that, so the description is nearly complete.

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%, with only explicit_user_intent having a description. The tool description reinforces the gating role of explicit_user_intent but does not address the response_format parameter. Therefore, it partially compensates for the missing schema description.

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 the action ('Delete the local Withings token file') and the specific resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'withings_connection_status' or 'withings_cache_status'. It also clarifies the limitation of local-only clearing, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions the gating by explicit_user_intent but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes that revocation support varies, but no alternatives or conditions for use are stated beyond requiring user intent.

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