clear_branch_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that clearing can optionally be preceded by archiving, which is useful context for destructive behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation is permanent, whether the header is preserved (despite the keepHeader parameter), or any side effects on related files.

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 wasted words. It conveys the action and the key optional behavior efficiently.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the core action but omits important context for a potentially destructive operation: reversibility, exact effects on notes, and when to use it relative to archiving. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond aligning with 'createArchive' and 'projectName', but does not enhance understanding of branchName or keepHeader beyond their schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('branch notes') with a scoping qualifier ('for a project'), making the primary purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'archive_branch_note', though the optional archive-first behavior hints at the relationship.

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 implies usage through the action itself (clear branch notes) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention that archive_branch_note might be used if archival without clearing is desired.

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