clear_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses multi-agent tab ownership, the cross-agent rejection code TAB_NOT_OWNED, the configurable cap and its range, and the change_report return shape including truncation flags and the read_page fallback. That is substantially more than the name or schema conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and when-to-use, then layered into Related, multi-agent, and RETURNS blocks that each carry weight. It is dense and slightly bloated, and the orphaned cap sentence is wasted space, but nothing else is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value, and it does in detail: change_report fields, the truncated flag, and the read_page escape hatch. Combined with multi-agent and error-code coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the description's tab_id guidance largely restates the schema text, so there is little added meaning. The "cap configurable (default 8, 1-64)" clause is not anchored to any declared parameter, which adds ambiguity rather than clarity, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Clear the contents of an input field") plus the immediate outcome ("Returns clear confirmation"). The Related line separates it from type_text and get_dom_snapshot, so an agent can route without opening sibling schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ("before typing new text into an already-filled field to remove existing content") and names the adjacent tools with their roles. The relationship to type_text in particular makes the when-to-use decision unambiguous.

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