clear_authentication

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the specific behavioral consequence: disabling writes until re-authentication. This provides actionable context beyond the binary hints, clarifying the exact scope of impact. No contradiction with annotations; the description enhances rather than repeats.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Forget the stored session key') followed by the consequence. There is no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is complete. It states what the tool does, the effect on writes, and the condition for recovery (re-authentication). With annotations covering safety indicators, nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 complete (100% coverage). The description needs to convey no parameter information. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to add nonexistent parameter details.

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 action (forget stored session key) and the consequence (disabling writes until re-authenticated). This is specific and distinct from sibling authentication tools like start_authentication or finish_authentication. The agent immediately understands the tool's function without ambiguity.

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 (when you need to invalidate the session) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Since there are no alternative paths discussed, the guidance is only implied through the purpose, not explicitly provided.

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