clear_formatting

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important context: the operation is revisionable and emits a native run-property-change revision. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second adds behavioral context. Well-structured and efficient.

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?

With 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior (revisionable), and scope (paragraphs). It could mention error conditions or file modification details, but the combination with schema annotations is fairly 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description repeats the list of formatting types but adds context about run-level and revisions. Since schema coverage is high, baseline is 3; the description offers moderate added value.

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 specific run-level formatting (bold, italic, underline, highlight, color, font) from paragraphs, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like format_layout which likely deals with layout-level 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 implies usage for clearing run-level formatting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., format_layout). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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