context_clear

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'clear' implying destructive behavior, but does not explain whether this clears all context or only a specific session, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is extremely short (three words), which is concise but under-specified. It does not waste words, but it also fails to front-load necessary context. The brevity feels like under-specification rather than effective conciseness, especially given the lack of behavioral details.

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 is part of a larger context/memory suite, but the description gives no sense of how clearing context fits into the workflow. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of scope or consequences. For a destructive operation, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent without enough information to invoke it safely.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, session_id, with a clear description. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the schema itself sufficiently explains the parameter's purpose.

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 'Clear context values' clearly identifies the action (clear) and the resource (context values). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like context_set and context_get, though it could be more specific about what 'context values' entails. The verb+resource structure is clear and non-tautological.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_delete or context_share. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. The description implies clearing context but gives no context on when that is appropriate.

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