cigchat_subscriber_clear_user_fields

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

The description discloses the HTTP method (DELETE), the endpoint, and a required scope ('Manage Flow'), which adds useful behavioral context. However, since there are no annotations, it fails to disclose irreversibility, what 'clear' does to the fields, or error/limit behavior beyond the 20-field cap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main action, then adds endpoint and scope in a delimited form. No filler or repetition; 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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits a critical explanation of 'user_ns', does not specify the semantics of 'clear', and provides no guidance on when to use this over the by_name variant. The endpoint and scope help, but the overall picture is incomplete.

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 only mentions 'up to 20 user fields', which vaguely relates to the data array, but does not explain the 'user_ns' parameter or the 'var_ns' semantics beyond what is already in the schema. The description adds minimal guidance for parameter usage.

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 multiple subscriber user fields'), the resource, and a limit ('up to 20 user fields'), with a concrete endpoint. It differentiates from singular sibling tools by emphasizing 'multiple', but does not explicitly distinguish from the by_name sibling variant (cigchat_subscriber_clear_user_fields_by_name).

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?

Usage context is implied through 'multiple' and the endpoint path, suggesting it is for batch clearing. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (like clear_user_field or clear_user_fields_by_name) or exclusions are provided. The scope requirement is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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