clear_authentication

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint and idempotentHint; the description goes beyond them by pinning down exactly what is destroyed (the stored token) and what the resulting state is (forgotten). It doesn't cover side effects like rate limits or required auth, but those are not strongly needed for a zero-parameter clear 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?

Seven words, front-loaded action, no filler. Every phrase ('revoke', 'stored token', 'forget it') adds a distinct piece of meaning.

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 parameterless destructive operation with an output schema and annotations covering idempotence and destructive behavior, this is complete. An agent has enough information to know what will happen and when to call it.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add. The description does clarify that the token in question is the stored authentication token, which is useful context.

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 concrete action: 'Revoke the stored token' and the end state 'forget it.' This clearly separates it from start_authentication and finish_authentication, which establish credentials rather than clear them.

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 use case is implied—call this when the stored authentication token should no longer be used—but there is no explicit when/why guidance or comparison with siblings like create_oauth_revoke. It offers no exclusions, yet also names no alternatives.

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