clear_board_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema: the default deletes only read notes, and include_unread expands that scope. It omits irreversibility, required permissions, and what "handled" means, which is a notable gap for a destructive 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive verb first and the scope modifier second; there is no filler. The colon construction is slightly compressed but efficient overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive, zero-annotation tool with 0% parameter documentation, the description gives the default scope but leaves the meaning of "handled," the project/topic parameters, and deletion permanence unstated.

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 explains the semantics of include_unread but says nothing about project (required) or topic (the filter parameter), leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 ("Delete") and resource ("blackboard notes"), which clearly separates it from read_board_notes and post_board_note. However, the qualifier "handled" is unexplained jargon, so an agent cannot be fully certain which notes qualify as targets.

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?

It implies a default scope ("read notes only by default") versus a widened scope with include_unread, which is useful usage context. But it names no alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, and does not reference read_board_notes as the non-destructive option.

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