clear_run_formatting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect: removing formatting and inheriting defaults. However, it does not disclose potential errors or side effects, which is acceptable for a simple 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 concise with two sentences plus an Args list. The Args section is not strictly necessary given the schema, but it aids readability. No wasted words.

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 reset tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter semantics adequately. It lacks mention of scope or impact on other runs, but overall complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds minimal value: 'paraId of the target paragraph' and 'Zero-based index of the run' provide context beyond names but are somewhat redundant with parameter titles.

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 'Remove all character formatting from a run', specifying both the action and the target resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like set_run_* which apply formatting.

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 implicitly indicates when to use (to reset formatting), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternative tools. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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