clear_project_context

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

The description indicates a destructive operation ('Wipe') but does not disclose reversibility, side effects, permission requirements, or whether other aspects of the project remain intact beyond the entity. No annotations are present to supplement.

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, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope.

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 simple destructive operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic effect (what is wiped, what is kept). However, missing usage guidance and behavioral transparency leaves gaps for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool safely.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'projectId' parameter (e.g., format, valid values, or where to find it). This leaves the agent to infer its meaning solely from the parameter 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Wipe'), the target resource ('four arrays: facts/conventions/commands/glossary'), and the scope ('for projectId') while distinguishing from related tools like append_project_fact or remove_project_fact. It also notes that the entity itself is preserved.

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 (e.g., remove_project_fact for individual entries, or upsert_project_context for full replacement). No prerequisites, consequences, or context provided.

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