Clear this session's client selection

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description earns credit for disclosing post-condition routing behavior and the produced operation-receipt, though the repeated "idempotency=read-only / Safety: read-only" lines duplicate annotation data rather than adding to it.

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 first two sentences are front-loaded and high value. The trailing metadata block (Phase/cost/idempotency/Requires/Produces/Safety) is somewhat boilerplate and partially restates annotations, but it stays compact and the failure pointer is useful.

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, annotation-covered operation with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, post-state behavior, producing an operation-receipt, and what to do on failure.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is the baseline 4. The "Signature: {}" note correctly signals an empty argument set, matching the empty input schema.

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 and resource ("Drop THIS session's client binding") with explicit scope, and clarifies it loosens a pin rather than disconnecting a client. An agent can distinguish it from select-client without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ("reset routing before re-selecting, or to hand control back to auto-resolution") and describes the post-state routing rules (auto-resolve with one client; must select-client again with several accounts). It also names the relevant sibling, select-client.

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