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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the side effects (verdict nulled on every find, removed from list_kept_finds), idempotent/retry-safe behavior, and cost ('Free'). It omits auth requirements (the api_key parameter) and any error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then return value, idempotency, HTTP equivalence, and cost in four lean sentences. The trailing one-word 'Free.' and the HTTP-path aside are slightly non-essential but not wasteful enough to hurt usability.

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?

An output schema exists, so re-explaining the return value is bonus rather than required. Combined with the disclosed side effects, idempotency, and cost, the definition is nearly complete; the only real gap is the undocumented api_key parameter and lack of differentiation from clear_decision.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate. It contextually identifies find_id via the return shape and the per-find semantics, but says nothing about api_key or the required/optional distinction. Half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ('clear' the 'find decision') and anchors it explicitly to the inverse sibling operation ('Undo keep_find'), so an agent can place it precisely in the keep/clear lifecycle. It also states the concrete state change: the video returns to having no verdict on every find and leaves list_kept_finds.

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 clearly frames this as the inverse of keep_find and clarifies that clearing an already-undecided find is a success, which tells the agent it can call this without a precondition check. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling clear_decision tool, nor state when-not to use it.

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