clear_auth

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Clear') but does not elaborate on effects like whether this logs out users, requires re-authentication, affects all sessions, or has irreversible consequences. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its impact.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (a mutation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral effects, usage context, or return values. This is sufficient for a simple operation but leaves room for improvement in guiding safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for.

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 ('Clear') and target ('stored authentication credentials'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_auth_status' or 'authenticate_plex', but the verb 'Clear' implies a distinct destructive operation versus read-only checks or setup actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like resetting authentication, troubleshooting login issues, or privacy concerns, nor does it reference sibling tools such as 'check_auth_status' for verifying credentials or 'authenticate_plex' for re-establishing them.

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