jwt_clear_token

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It clearly states the cached JWT token is cleared and that this relates to re-authentication, and it discloses the return type (confirmation message). It could additionally clarify whether the token is also invalidated server-side or whether the current session is immediately logged out, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and contains only useful context. The use-case guidance and return note are each valuable, with no filler or repetition.

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-parameter utility with an output schema already present, the description provides adequate context: what is cleared, when to use it, and what the response will be. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs; a score of 4 reflects the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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 action ('Clear') on a specific resource ('the cached JWT token'), which is immediately understandable. It also gives concrete use cases (re-authenticate with a different account, token issues) that make the tool's purpose distinct from generic session-clearing tools.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: when re-authenticating with a different account or when the token is causing issues. It does not mention when not to use it or point to an alternative like session_clear, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.

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