cigchat_subscriber_clear_user_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the HTTP method (DELETE) and the required scope, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether clearing is idempotent, whether it only removes the value or also other data, or what happens if the field does not exist). This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 that conveys the action, endpoint, and authentication requirement without unnecessary words. Every element serves a purpose, making this a model of concise tool documentation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It omits details about the subscriber context, what the cleared field value is, the response format, and potential errors. An agent would need to make assumptions or consult other tools.

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?

The schema describes 'var_ns' but leaves 'user_ns' without any description. The tool description adds no parameter details, failing to compensate for the incomplete schema. An agent cannot infer what 'user_ns' refers to (likely subscriber identifier) from the description alone, so parameter semantics are under-specified.

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 ('Clear subscriber user field value') and includes the endpoint [DELETE /subscriber/clear-user-field], making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the similarly named sibling 'cigchat_subscriber_clear_user_field_by_name', which reduces clarity for an agent choosing between them.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the Manage Flow scope on the token') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cigchat_subscriber_clear_user_field_by_name'. There is no context about typical use cases or situations to avoid this tool, leaving the agent without decision guidance.

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