LMS 연결 해제

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

Annotations already mark destructive and idempotent behavior, and the description adds specific destructive scope: cookies/tokens, the optional browser profile for original-text viewing, and the optional local snapshot for change detection. This is meaningful context 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?

Two sentences with the main action front-loaded and conditional behaviors described efficiently. There is no filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 destructive tool with two optional booleans and no output schema, the description covers the deletion scope and flag behavior completely. It does not need to explain return values, and the annotations already cover safety semantics.

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 schema already describes both booleans with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the real-world effect of each flag, which helps the agent decide whether to set delete_browser_profile or delete_snapshot.

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: 'Deletes saved LMS session (cookies/tokens).' It also differentiates itself from sibling tools like connect_lms and get_auth_status by making clear it is the teardown operation.

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 intended use is implied by the main action, and the flag conditions are explained. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with connect_lms or get_auth_status, nor does it state when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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