opencode_tui_clear_prompt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds that it clears 'current prompt text' specifically, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose whether this is reversible, whether it affects the session, or what the output schema contains. 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?

A single sentence with no waste. The action and target are front-loaded and clear. It earns its place without redundancy.

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 TUI action with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explain the effect of the 'directory' parameter on the action, nor does it clarify whether clearing is scoped to a project. Given the destructive annotation, a bit more context about what is not affected (e.g., session history) would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'directory' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('current prompt text in the TUI'), which is clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like opencode_tui_append_prompt and opencode_tui_submit_prompt. It lacks explicit differentiation from those siblings, 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it only affects the current prompt text, not the session or conversation, nor does it state when clearing is appropriate. The sibling list includes related TUI tools, but the description provides no routing context.

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