clear_context_batch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'application-level batching' and MCP compliance, hinting at operational constraints, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., data loss), or response behavior. The warning icon suggests caution but without elaboration, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's impact.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a compliance note. Both sentences are relevant, with no wasted words. However, the lack of detail on parameters and usage slightly undermines efficiency, as it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 complexity of a batch operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses key details: parameter meanings, behavioral risks (e.g., data deletion), and expected outcomes. The MCP compliance note adds some context but does not suffice for safe and effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain any of the 4 parameters (context, delete_context_after, dry_run, registry), their purposes, or how they affect the operation. This leaves critical input semantics unclear, failing to add value beyond the bare schema.

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 action ('Clear all subjects') and target resource ('in a context'), specifying it uses 'application-level batch operations'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'clear_multiple_contexts_batch' by focusing on a single context, though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what 'subjects' are.

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 versus alternatives like 'delete_context' or 'clear_multiple_contexts_batch' is provided. The description mentions 'application-level batching' and MCP compliance, which implies a specific technical context, but does not state when this approach is preferred or required over other methods.

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