clear-auth

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 effectively describes a destructive action ('Clear') and its consequence ('requires re-authentication'), which are critical behavioral traits. However, it lacks details like whether this action is reversible, its impact on ongoing sessions, or error handling, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Clear stored authentication tokens') and follows with essential context ('requires re-authentication'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and implications.

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 (simple, parameterless action) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the action and its key consequence. However, it could be more comprehensive by addressing potential side effects or confirming success, which would enhance completeness for a destructive operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter-specific information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it meets expectations for a parameterless tool without redundancy or omission.

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') and resource ('stored authentication tokens'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform different operations like checking, creating, deleting, or listing resources. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context for usage by indicating that it 'requires re-authentication,' which implicitly guides when to use this tool (e.g., when tokens need invalidation or troubleshooting). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as tools for checking authentication status, which could enhance guidance.

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