Remove notes from a specified pattern, optionally limiting deletion to one channel; clear all pattern notes when no channel is provided.
Remove the notes of channel from pattern pattern (or all of its notes when channel is None).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | No | ||
| pattern | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. "Remove" implies destruction, but it says nothing about irreversibility, undo support, or whether the cleared notes can be recovered — the None case is clarified, but the risk profile of the mutation is not.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and constraint, with zero filler. Slightly too terse for the risk involved, but nothing is wasted.
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?
No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only behavioral source for a destructive mutation. It omits what happens on an invalid pattern, whether the operation is undoable, and what the call reports back — gaps an agent would need before calling it on a real project.
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. It does explain that channel is optional and that None means all channels' notes, which is a genuine semantic addition, but it never says what 'pattern' identifies beyond the name.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Remove the notes") scoped to a channel within a pattern, which is concrete enough for an agent to understand the effect. It does not differentiate itself from the obvious sibling write_notes, so an agent still has to infer the boundary between clearing and writing.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite write_notes and get_notes being adjacent siblings doing related things. The only guidance is the parenthetical about channel=None, which is a parameter semantic, not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.