ACC.MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect (clearing cached tokens and fallback behavior), which is useful, but lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it logs out all sessions), or error handling. It adds some value but does not fully cover behavioral traits for a tool that modifies authentication state.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action and follow with the consequence, with zero wasted words. Every sentence adds critical information, making it highly 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 (authentication-related with no annotations or output schema), the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on success/failure responses, prerequisites, or security implications. It covers the core purpose and effect but could benefit from more context for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters without redundancy.

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 specific action ('Clear the cached 3‑legged OAuth token') and the resource affected (authentication tokens), distinguishing it from sibling tools like aps_login or aps_get_token. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to clear cached OAuth tokens) and mentions the consequence ('API calls fall back to the 2‑legged token'), which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as aps_login for re-authentication.

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