lc_clear_pages

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it erases notes, indicating destructive action, but fails to mention irreversibility, the need for the 'force' parameter to overwrite write-protected songs, or that it defaults to all pages/channels (only implied by the schema descriptions). It also omits that folder and song are required context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. It includes the most critical information (action and scope) and leaves details to the schema, achieving maximum 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is lacking. It doesn't mention that the operation depends on folder and song (required params), the force parameter's role, or the irreversible nature of erasing notes. An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand the full context, which is suboptimal.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters described); only 'song' lacks a schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it merely echoes 'channels and pages' with defaults already stated in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Erase' and the resource 'every note in the given channels and pages', making the core purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like lc_write_page or lc_set_notes by being explicitly destructive, but it doesn't name a specific alternative to differentiate beyond that.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lc_set_notes or lc_write_page. The description implies it is for clearing notes, but doesn't state exclusions (e.g., 'use lc_set_notes to overwrite specific notes') or prerequisites like requiring an existing song.

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