knitbrain_team_clear

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only mentions that CCR originals are retained until tiered out, which hints at non-destructive behavior but omits details like irreversibility, permissions needed, or side effects.

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 that front-loads the action and includes a clarifying note. It is concise, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating action from behavioral note).

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description should fully explain what 'clear' means. It does not specify the result (e.g., board becomes empty, what happens to non-CCR items), leaving ambiguity. The CCR note is helpful but insufficient for complete understanding.

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 no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 100% (empty). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.

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 action ('Clear the shared team board') and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like knitbrain_team_board (likely read) and knitbrain_team_post (likely write). The clarification about CCR originals adds nuance, but 'clear' could be more precise.

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 explain prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like knitbrain_team_post (which might add entries) or knitbrain_team_board (which might view).

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