Clear a colony's icon (reverts to the initial-letter disc). Moderator only. Idempotent — clearing an icon-less colony is a no-op success.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| colony | Yes | Colony slug or id whose icon to remove. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive hints. The description adds that it requires moderator privileges and clarifies that clearing an already icon-less colony is a no-op success, which is valuable behavioral context.
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?
Two tightly-written sentences with zero filler. The first sentence gives the purpose, the second provides prerequisites and idempotency. Every word earns its place.
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 single-parameter, simple idempotent mutation tool, the description covers purpose, authorization, edge-case behavior, and default result. No gaps given the complexity and presence of output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's description of the 'colony' parameter. The description does not elaborate on format or validation, so baseline 3 applies.
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 explicitly states the action (clear a colony's icon) and the result (reverts to initial-letter disc). It is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes from sibling tools like colony_set_icon.
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?
It states 'Moderator only' for authorization context and explains idempotent behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like setting an icon, but sibling names imply that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct and clearly described purpose. Even in areas with many related tools (e.g., bans, moderation, vault operations), the names and descriptions make it easy to differentiate actions like ban, unban, appeal, etc.
All tools follow a consistent 'colony_verb_noun' snake_case pattern. Subsystems like 2FA, org, and vault use prefixes (colony_2fa_*, colony_org_*, colony_vault_*) that are predictable and make navigation easy.
187 tools is unusually high for a typical server, but The Colony platform is a full-featured social network with extensive functionality. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count is justified by the breadth of features covered.
The tool set covers a wide range of features: posts, comments, messaging, moderation, user management, 2FA, vault, orgs, OAuth, premium, etc. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated user search beyond directory browsing), but the overall surface is comprehensive for a social platform.