clear_app_rule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the removal action, the behavioral effect on new windows, the exact matching requirement with case-insensitivity, the failure mode when no rule matches, and the guarantee that 'nothing else changes.' This is unusually complete for a low-complexity 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and effect are front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance and failure behavior. Every clause contributes information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It explains the purpose, the source and matching rules for the parameter, the effect, the failure behavior, and the absence of side effects. An agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

The schema already fully documents the app parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful detail that matching is case-insensitive, which is not present in the schema and affects how the agent should pass the value. That extra semantic justifies a score above baseline.

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 opens with 'Remove the rule set for an app,' which names a specific verb and resource, and explicitly references set_app_rule and get_state.app_rules to locate the tool within its context. This distinguishes clear_app_rule from its sibling tools, especially the inverse operation set_app_rule.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: after a rule has been set with set_app_rule, when the user wants new windows to return to default placement. It also tells the agent where to source the app parameter ('exactly as get_state.app_rules lists it') and notes the failure case. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough that an agent can route correctly.

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