clear_issue_labels

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

The description labels the operation as 'Destructive for that issue's labels' and advises user confirmation, providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema. While it doesn't detail irreversibility or authorization, the destructiveness warning is sufficient for this simple mutation.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds usage guidelines. No extraneous information.

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 tool removing all labels, the description covers the action, the method (by index), the destructive nature, and provides a clear alternative. Without an output schema, no further return value details are expected.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (repo, index, owner) with 100% coverage. The description only restates that the index is an issue number, adding minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove ALL labels from an issue by its `index`', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `replace_issue_labels` by noting when that alternative should be used.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Confirm with the user first; if a known subset must remain, use replace_issue_labels with that subset instead.' This clearly tells when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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