clear_trust_boundaries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of destruction (all trust boundaries, crossing points, and trust zones) but does not explicitly warn about irreversibility or potential impact on related architecture elements. A confirmation message is mentioned as the return value.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main behavior stated in the first two sentences. There is minor redundancy between the first sentence and the second paragraph, but the Args/Returns sections are standard and add no fluff.

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 straightforward clear/reset tool, the description adequately covers the main behavior and return value. It lacks details on side effects or edge cases, but the output schema supplies return structure, making it sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 tool has zero input parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description mentions 'ctx' under Args, but this is not present in the schema, which could cause minor confusion. However, since there are no actual parameters, the baseline of 4 applies.

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 all trust boundaries, and expands to include crossing points and trust zones. The 'all' distinguishes it from single-delete siblings like delete_trust_boundary, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as delete_trust_boundary or clear_architecture. It doesn't mention prerequisites, consequences, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer its role from the name and sibling context.

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