clear_post_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the mutating nature (removal) but does not disclose potential side effects, reversibility, or behavior when no visual is selected. The mention of 'editInVisualEditor' is a behavioral detail but is cryptic and incomplete.

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 but the second sentence introduces ambiguity about whether editInVisualEditor is a return value or a side effect. The structure is slightly disjointed, though the primary action is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the response, or under what conditions editInVisualEditor appears. The platform-specific behavior is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics; postId and platform are already adequately described in the 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 first sentence clearly states the primary action: removing a selected visual from a post for a specific platform. The second sentence about editInVisualEditor is tangential and slightly detracts from the core purpose, but the verb 'remove' distinguishes it from siblings like pick_post_visual or regenerate_post_visual.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pick_post_visual or regenerate_post_visual. The description implies usage for removing a visual but provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when clearing is appropriate versus other operations.

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