clear_logic

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the operation removes logic (implying mutation/destruction), but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, reversibility, or what happens if the group/owner does not exist. Given the destructive nature, more transparency (e.g., 'this irreversibly deletes conditions') is expected.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and immediately explains the two execution modes. All information is relevant, and nothing is redundant.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations. It omits the roles of 'handle' and 'tag', does not mention return type or error conditions, and lacks details on how to select the target. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 indirectly clarifies 'group' (a group of conditions) and 'owner' (the owner of groups), but it entirely ignores the required 'handle' and the optional 'tag' parameters. Without these, an agent cannot fully understand how to specify the target. It adds only partial meaning to two of four parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to remove logic, either a specified group of conditions entirely or, without a group, all groups belonging to an owner. It uses a specific verb and identifies the resource (logic/conditions) and the two distinct modes. This distinguishes it from siblings like remove_plan, which targets plans rather than logic groups.

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 conveys when to use the tool: when clearing logic for a specific group, pass 'group'; when clearing all groups for an owner, omit it. It provides conditional usage guidance, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like remove_plan. Still, the two scenarios give clear usage context.

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