Clear Local Auth Cache

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It states the destructive action (deleting cached tokens and pending login state) and adds a 'Development only' caveat, but it does not disclose potential side effects on the current session or clarify that this is local-only, which would be useful for a destructive 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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded. The first sentence 'Development only.' immediately communicates the context, followed by a precise action statement. The Chinese intent examples add multilingual value without bloat. Every sentence earns its 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, the environment restriction, and the exact state cleared. However, it could go slightly further by stating whether this impacts server-side auth sessions or what the expected result is, which would enhance completeness.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is trivially 100% covered. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly avoids unnecessary detail.

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: to delete locally cached tokens and pending device-code login state. It uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource and distinguishes itself from sibling auth tools like auth_start_device_login and auth_complete_device_login.

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 includes a clear usage context: 'Development only.' This indicates when the tool should be used (development environments) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions beyond environment. The uniqueness of the action makes usage context reasonably clear.

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