Clear Jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that saved/applied and dismissed jobs are not affected, and that dismissed jobs remain dismissed. The return type ('text') is mentioned. It could add details on reversibility or permissions but is fairly 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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides necessary details efficiently.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers primary behavior, return type, and exclusions. It is mostly complete but could mention error scenarios or permissions for full completeness.

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 schema coverage is 100% with enum descriptions. The description adds minimal extra context ('not-yet-evaluated leftovers' vs 'un-evaluated in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as it doesn't significantly enhance parameter meaning.

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 tool clears jobs from the review board, distinguishing between 'unscored' (only un-evaluated jobs) and 'all' (entire board). This differentiates it from siblings like 'evaluate_jobs' or 'bulk_status'.

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 details when to use each 'which' option and notes that dismissed jobs are unaffected, providing implicit guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to siblings like 'set_status' or 'rescore_board' for alternative actions.

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