Stop IRC typing notification

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it does not send a message and clears the typing state, but it does not address edge cases such as what happens if no typing notification is active. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and this adds moderate value.

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 only two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and no extraneous content. Every sentence adds practical value.

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 simple tool with an output schema and existing sibling tools, the description is complete enough. It clearly differentiates from siblings and gives usage context, though the missing account parameter reduces completeness slightly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to 'target' by saying it can be a channel or user, but it does not explain the 'account' parameter at all. Thus, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 a specific resource 'active typing notification', and specifies the scope ('for a channel or user'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like irc_start_typing and irc_send_with_typing.

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?

Provides an explicit usage context ('if you started typing with irc_start_typing but decided not to send') and names the related sibling. It does not state when not to use, but the context is clear enough to be nearly explicit.

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