messages_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('clear/hide') but doesn't explain what 'clear' or 'hide' means operationally—e.g., whether this is reversible, if it affects other messages or system states, or what permissions are required. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the behavioral impact (e.g., reversibility, side effects) or provide usage context relative to siblings. Given the complexity of message management in this system, more detail is needed to guide effective tool selection.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'messageId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the message to clear/hide'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.

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/hide') and the target resource ('a specific message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'messages_delete' or 'stage_hide_message', which might have similar functions but different scopes or effects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'messages_delete' or 'stage_hide_message'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the message must be visible or in a specific state, or what distinguishes 'clear' from 'delete' in this system.

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