clear_architecture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive action ('clears all components, connections, and data stores'), but does not explicitly warn about irreversibility or potential side effects on related entities like threats or trust boundaries. A bit more caution language would improve it.

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 appropriately concise, with a one-line summary, a clear scope statement, and a returns note. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the action, the exact scope, and the return type. However, it lacks an explicit caution about the destructive nature or any impact on related architecture elements, which would make it more complete for agent decision-making.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions an 'Args: ctx' parameter not present in the schema, which is a standard MCP context object and not a user-facing parameter, so it doesn't mislead significantly. No additional parameter explanation needed.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('clears') and resource ('architecture'), and explicitly enumerates what gets cleared (components, connections, data stores). This distinguishes it from sibling clear tools like clear_business_context and clear_threat_actors.

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 by naming the scope (all components, connections, data stores), but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It's clear this is for resetting the architecture, but no contextual preconditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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