auth_revoke_cache

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that only the in-memory cache is dropped (not persisted credentials), that the effect is deferred to the next API call, and that a re-sign will occur. It does not say whether it errors when no cache exists or what it returns, which are the remaining gaps.

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, zero waste, action front-loaded ahead of the rationale. Every clause earns its place by conveying effect and timing.

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-param, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers what the agent needs: no inputs, local scope, and the observable consequence. It could add whether any return value or error is produced, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 schema has zero parameters and additionalProperties is false, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed via its global 'drop the cache' framing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Drop'), a specific resource ('the in-memory JWT cache'), and the resulting behavior ('so the next API call re-signs'). This is unmistakably a local auth-cache operation and shares no ambiguity with the App Store Connect resource siblings (e.g., accounts_switch, auth_status).

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?

Gives a concrete trigger context: 'Useful after rotating the `.p8`.' That tells the agent when the tool matters. It stops short of naming the sibling to prefer in other cases (e.g., auth_status for checking auth state) or any when-not condition, so it is clear context without explicit alternatives.

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