clear_asset_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the side effect ('deletes the notes on the server'), the narrow scope ('Only the plugin's own key is removed'), and the success semantics ('Success is true only when nothing failed'). It does not cover permissions or irreversibility explicitly, but the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 efficiently structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, follow-up sentences add scope and side-effect detail, and the Args/Returns block is clearly labeled. There is no filler or redundant prose; every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the purpose, scope, side effect, and return value semantics, including a failed-array explanation. An output schema exists per context, so the explicit Returns block is a bonus. Minor omissions like handling of invalid or missing asset IDs do not significantly hamper correct invocation.

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. However, it only says 'asset_ids: The assets to clear,' which barely adds meaning beyond the schema's title 'Asset Ids' and array-of-strings type. No format, edge-case behavior, or array semantics are explained, leaving the parameter mostly self-explanatory by 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Forget the plugin's notes on assets (reviews and actions).' It further scopes the operation by noting 'Only the plugin's own key is removed; metadata other apps stored stays,' which clearly distinguishes it from generic note-related tools in the sibling list such as get_asset_notes and review_assets.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention alternatives or caution against using it when preserving plugin notes is desired. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Forget,' so an agent has to infer when this tool should be selected over related siblings.

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