buzz_status_clear

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It precisely states the effect (a replaceable-event clear of status with empty content) and the environment constraint (agent mode only, wire mode refusal). This is strong transparency for a tool of this simplicity; it doesn't clutter with less relevant details.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the protocol/mode details are packed in without redundancy.

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 no-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, this description is complete: it states the action, the protocol behavior, and the operating constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly doesn't invent parameters; the baseline of 4 applies for zero-param tools.

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 names a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('your live user status'), and anchors it in protocol detail (NIP-38 kind 30315, d=general, replaceable-event clear), which distinguishes it from siblings like buzz_status_set.

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 clearly restricts usage to agent mode and warns that wire mode cannot sign kind 30315, so the tool refuses there. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools (e.g., buzz_status_set) for setting status, leaving that routing implicit.

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