clear_business_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state what gets cleared (business context, description, clarification questions), which adds value, but it omits whether the operation is irreversible, destructive, or scoped to certain data. The confirmation message is mentioned, but no side effects or limitations are disclosed.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential details: what is cleared, the context argument, and the return type. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is clean and scannable.

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 with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core behavior and return value. It lacks guidance on when to use it or what happens to associated data, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions an 'ctx' argument for logging and error handling, but it is not present in the schema, which could confuse an agent. However, since there are no documented parameters, the description does not need to add much parameter semantics.

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's function with a specific verb ('Clears') and resource ('the business context'), and explicitly enumerates what is cleared ('description, and clarification questions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_business_context and get_business_context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios such as resetting context or mention sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and the action 'clear', which is insufficient for an agent deciding between this and set_business_context.

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