Clear teleport-queued code (sUNC clearqueueonteleport)

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

The description discloses a great deal beyond the annotations: the error envelope when the function is missing, the pcall/type-guard wrapping, the return shape { cleared } or { error }, and the MUTATING safety profile — all of which align with destructiveHint=true. However, it asserts 'idempotency=idempotent-write' while the annotations declare idempotentHint=false, a direct conflict that an agent could rely on when deciding whether to retry.

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 first sentence is well front-loaded with the key action and its effect, but the definition then piles on a metadata block (phase/cost/idempotency/requires/produces) plus a generic 'On failure: inspect tool-schema…' instruction that is boilerplate rather than tool-specific. It is dense and mostly earns its place, but not tight enough for a 4-5.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return contract ({ cleared } or { error }), the failure envelope, the preconditions, and a verification path — everything an agent needs to invoke and check this mutation correctly.

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% and both parameters are already documented as optional deadline/thread-identity fields, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's restatement ('Signature: { threadContext: number?, timeoutMs: number? }') adds no semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('clears any code previously queued with queueonteleport'), names the underlying executor function, and contrasts directly with the sibling queue-on-teleport ('After this, nothing will auto-run on the next teleport'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.

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 the precondition ('Requires: active-client, explicit-mutation-approval'), the phase ('act'), and a verification step ('Verify with: assert-state'), which tells the agent when this call is appropriate and what must happen around it. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative tool or an when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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