Clear active build

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds important context by delimiting the destructive scope to the server's local selection and explicitly stating that PoB files and remote profiles are not modified. This helps an agent understand exactly what state changes.

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?

Single sentence with no filler. The key scoping detail is front-loaded after the verb and directly addresses the operation's effect.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the action, target, and non-effects. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without further context.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and a specific resource ('server's local active-build selection'), and contrasts itself with sibling mutation tools by clarifying that remote profiles and PoB files are untouched. This is sufficient for an agent to distinguish it from set_active_character and refresh_active_build.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as set_active_character or refresh_active_build. The intended use is implied by the action ('clear the active build'), but an explicit statement of when to prefer this over related mutation tools would be stronger.

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