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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the Overlord-only restriction, the dependency on board_hide's reason list, and the fact that the member can set a new profile afterward. No contradiction 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 short sentences deliver the action, permission, reason-source reference, and consequence with no filler. The key behavior is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter destructive action with an output schema, the description covers role, action, reason source, and reversibility. It is slightly incomplete on the exact reason enum and the meaning of 'name', but overall sufficient for agent invocation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It explains that 'reason' uses the same list as board_hide, but it does not list valid reasons or clarify what 'name' refers to (member identifier vs. display name).

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 names a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('a member's public profile'), and adds the Overlord-only permission context. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like board_delete or board_hide, but the action is unambiguous.

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 gives context such as 'Overlord only' and says the reason list matches board_hide, but it does not explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives like board_hide or board_delete. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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