clear_output_root

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates the state-changing effect (clearing the override and restoring the default), but does not mention idempotency, whether it affects the persistence of other settings, or what happens when no override is set. This is adequate for a simple reset operation but not fully transparent.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately clarifies the effect. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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, parameterless reset tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is cleared and what the resulting state is. It does not address edge cases like clearing when no override exists, and it does not explicitly position itself as the inverse of set_output_root, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully captures parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate since no compensation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('session output override'), and states the outcome ('restore <cwd>/output default'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from siblings like set_output_root and get_output_root by describing the reset operation.

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 usage context is implied: this tool is for undoing a previous output-root override and returning to the default. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, and the sibling contrast with set_output_root is left implicit.

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