browser_clear_http_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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action (disarm HTTP auth) and the scope (all or specific domains), but it does not mention edge cases (e.g., behavior when no auth is armed), side effects on the browser session, or any prerequisites beyond 'previously-armed'. It is transparent about the core action but lacks depth on consequences.

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, concise sentence with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the parameter scope is mentioned efficiently. 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and parameter semantics. However, with no annotations, it lacks explicit statements about return values, side effects (e.g., whether it clears auth for future requests), or error conditions. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to anticipate all behavioral outcomes.

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 0%, but the description directly explains the 'domains' parameter by stating it can clear 'all domains, or specific ones'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare array-of-strings definition. The explanation is sufficient for an agent to understand how to use the parameter, though it doesn't specify domain string format, which is likely self-evident.

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 ('Disarm') and a specific resource ('previously-armed HTTP basic-auth answers'), and clarifies the scope ('all domains, or specific ones'). It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like browser_http_auth, even though it doesn't explicitly name it. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage by referencing 'previously-armed' auth, which suggests it is used after arming via browser_http_auth. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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