Clear LINE session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context: it wipes only the login and preserves the extension install, and the schema's confirm parameter is described as a safety gate. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the destructive scope.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential scope and limitation. Every word earns its place, and it avoids restating the title or schema details.

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 destructive annotation, the confirm parameter, and the output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the operation is irreversible or suggest verifying with line_status afterward, but the core safety and scope information is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description doesn't add much beyond what the schema says, but the 'confirm' parameter's safety role is reinforced by the description's 'refuses safely' wording. Baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Wipe') and resource ('LINE login'), and distinguishes itself from a broader uninstall by clarifying that the extension install stays. It is clear and concise, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool for comparison.

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 implies a narrow use case (clearing only the login, not the install), which helps an agent decide when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like probe_session or line_status for checking state before/after.

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