clear_github_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool removes authentication and disconnects from GitHub, which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires user confirmation, affects other services, or what happens to existing data. It mentions switching accounts as a use case but doesn't detail the process.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose and usage well but could benefit from more behavioral details like confirmation requirements or effects on other tools. However, it adequately supports agent decision-making for this simple tool.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Remove', 'disconnect') and resource ('GitHub authentication', 'GitHub connection'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'check_github_auth' and 'setup_github_auth' by focusing on removal rather than checking or establishing authentication.

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 provides when to use this tool with concrete examples: 'when users say 'disconnect from GitHub', 'remove my GitHub connection', 'clear authentication', or want to switch accounts.' This gives clear contextual triggers and distinguishes it from alternatives like 'check_github_auth' for status verification.

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