Forget WHOOP credentials

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

Despite destructiveHint=true already signaling destruction, the description adds critical behavioral context: the operation is local-only and does not affect WHOOP-side authorization. It also informs the user that revocation must be done externally, preventing misinterpretation.

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 succinct at two sentences, with the primary action in the first sentence and a clarifying caveat in the second. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter logout tool, the description covers the action, its scope, and the distinction from full authorization revocation. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for return-value explanation, making it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema provides complete coverage. Per the baseline for 0 params, no additional description is needed to explain parameters. Score 4 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 'Delete the locally stored WHOOP token' uses a specific verb+resource, clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from sibling auth tools (whoop_auth_status, whoop_login) by focusing on local token deletion, not authentication or revocation.

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 what the tool does NOT do: 'This does not revoke the grant at WHOOP' and directs the user to the WHOOP app for revocation. This provides clear context for when to use the tool (local logout) and an alternative for full authorization withdrawal, though it doesn't explicitly reference sibling tool names.

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