cep_auth_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 transparently states the consequence of clearing cached OAuth credentials (forcing re-authentication on the next call). While it doesn't mention reversibility or impact on other servers, it clarifies the scope, which is sufficient for a simple clear operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, followed by usage guidance. No wasted words—both sentences earn their 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema. The description covers purpose, scope, and behavioral effect. With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% (i.e., no parameters to document). Per rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exists.

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 ('Clears') and resource ('cached OAuth credentials for the Chrome Enterprise Premium (CEP) MCP server'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting scope to the CEP MCP server and referencing a separate clear tool for Google Workspace.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool only for the CEP MCP server; the Google Workspace MCP server has its own separate clear tool.' This clearly directs users to the correct context and points to an alternative when applicable.

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