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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the important scope that this clears all company contexts from MCP server memory. However, it does not disclose the after-effects, such as requiring re-authentication or invalidating all existing connectionRefs beyond the immediate deletion.

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 one sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It front-loads the core behavior and scope immediately and earns its place without extra noise.

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, global operation, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks important operational context: no mention of irreversibility, re-authentication requirements, what the success response looks like, or explicit contrast with the single-company clearing tool. The lack of an output schema makes the missing return/effect guidance more noticeable.

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 provides 100% coverage: the single optional connectionRef parameter has a detailed explanation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 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 precise action and scope: 'Clears all connection credentials for all company contexts from MCP server memory.' It clearly distinguishes this from the singular sibling tool brc_clear_company_api_key by emphasizing 'all company contexts' and 'memory,' so an agent can identify the global variant.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool vs. brc_clear_company_api_key, and there is no warning that it should only be used when a full global reset is intended. The context is implicit from the name and description, but the description never explicitly states 'use this only when you need to clear every company context's credentials.'

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