svn_clear_credentials

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 mentions clearing credentials cache to resolve authentication errors, which implies a mutation operation (clearing/deleting cached data). However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, whether the action is reversible, what happens to current sessions, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose and intended use case. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action ('Limpiar cache de credenciales SVN') followed by the purpose ('para resolver errores de autenticación'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 (mutation operation affecting credentials), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and why, but doesn't cover important contextual aspects like what 'clearing' entails, whether it affects all users or just the current session, what authentication methods are impacted, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a credentials-related mutation tool, more completeness would be expected.

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% (empty schema is fully documented). With no parameters to describe, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to provide beyond what the schema already indicates (no 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Limpiar cache de credenciales SVN' (Clear SVN credentials cache) with the specific goal 'para resolver errores de autenticación' (to resolve authentication errors). It uses a specific verb ('Limpiar') and resource ('cache de credenciales SVN'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'svn_cleanup' or 'svn_diagnose' which might have overlapping purposes.

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 context ('para resolver errores de autenticación' - to resolve authentication errors), suggesting it should be used when authentication issues arise. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'svn_cleanup' or 'svn_diagnose', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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