tv_auth_session_clear

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 does clearly convey the destructive nature of the operation ('Delete'), which is important for an irreversible action. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the live session is also invalidated server-side, whether subsequent authenticated calls will fail until re-authentication, or whether the deletion is permanent.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. The verb 'Delete' is front-loaded, immediately signaling the destructive nature, and the rest of the sentence precisely scopes the target. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete — it fully states the action and the target. The only notable gap is the absence of post-condition context, such as whether re-authentication will be required afterward, which would help the agent reason about follow-up steps.

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 zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds meaningful context by naming the exact object being acted upon ('saved TradingView authenticated session cookie'), which effectively identifies the implicit target even without parameters.

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 ('Delete') and a precise resource ('saved TradingView authenticated session cookie'), making the tool's action unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tv_auth_session_start, tv_auth_session_set, and tv_auth_session_status, which create, set, or check sessions rather than remove them.

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 verb 'Delete' makes the intended use context implicitly clear — use it to remove the saved auth cookie, presumably before re-authenticating or when a session is invalid. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as tv_auth_session_set for overwriting the cookie instead of clearing it.

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