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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral value by explaining the all-or-one-type clearing behavior and the 'App-only' constraint. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful context beyond what the annotations provide.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that conveys the essential scope and behavior. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It fully covers the tool's behavior (clear all or specific type) and the app-only constraint, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the parameter 'type' is well-documented with an enum and description 'Context type to remove; omit to clear the entire Shoot Board.' The description's mention of 'one context type' adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'clear all session context items, or only one context type.' It uses a specific verb (clear) and resource (session context items/Shoot Board), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_add_context and mcp_replace_context by focusing on removal.

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 clear context: it's app-only and clears either all context items or a specific type. It implies when to use it (when clearing context is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. This is clear enough for the simple use case.

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