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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that a ModLog row is written and that the tool works when flair is disabled, providing behavioral context beyond what annotations convey. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, authority requirement, edge case and logging. No redundant information.

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 only 2 parameters and the presence of an output schema (context signal: true), the description covers authority requirements, an edge case, and side effects (ModLog). This is sufficient for an agent to understand how and when to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—both parameters (username, colony_name) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning, 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 action (clear) and the resource (a member's worn user flair). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like colony_assign_user_flair and colony_delete_user_flair by specifying 'clear a member's worn flair', which implies removal of the currently worn flair rather than deletion of flair templates.

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 specifies the required authority (can_manage_flair) and mentions that it works even when user flair is switched off, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like colony_assign_user_flair for setting flair.

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