auth_clear_token_cache

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the consequence (next API call will re-acquire tokens). It does not detail the scope of what is cleared (e.g., all accounts, current tenant) or potential side effects like forced re-login, but for a zero-parameter utility the transparency is solid.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the target, and the outcome without wasting words.

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 simple, parameterless, destructive-but-explained utility, the description plus annotations provide enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The absence of an output schema is not a significant gap for this kind of action.

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 and 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to explain any parameters. It fully conveys the operation's purpose, so the baseline for 0-parameter tools applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clear') and a clear resource ('cached authentication tokens'), stating exactly what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling auth tools (get current account, list accounts, switch tenant) by targeting a different operation entirely.

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 phrase 'to force re-acquisition on next API call' implicitly provides the primary use case: invalidate stale or unwanted cached tokens. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but no sibling offers a comparable token-clearing behavior, so the guidance is clear enough.

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