wisdom_clear_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It only says 'clear,' which implies a destructive or state-resetting operation, but does not disclose whether project data is deleted, whether the action is reversible, what happens to persisted context, or whether confirmation is needed.

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 short sentence and wastes no words. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of necessary behavioral 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?

This is a potentially state-changing tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description. An agent cannot safely invoke it without knowing what 'clear' affects, what 'context' means here, what happens if persist=false, and how it interacts with project-related siblings.

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 parameter 'persist' is already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter and does not explain its effect on 'project context' in concrete terms.

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 verb ('Clear') and a resource ('current project context'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'current project context' is vague: it is unclear whether this means resetting an in-memory working set, deleting project data, or clearing a selection, and it does not distinguish the behavior from related siblings like wisdom_set_project or wisdom_load_context_for_task.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wisdom_set_project, wisdom_load_context_for_task, or wisdom_get_project. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to guess when clearing is appropriate.

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