agent_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool clears live assignment state, making the agent 'ready for the next packet', which conveys the mutating and releasing effect. It also mentions the prerequisite of verification. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like whether the operation is reversible or what happens if the dispatch_id is invalid, though for a clear operation this may be sufficient.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and lifecycle context. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential context: the lifecycle position, the specific effect, and the orchestrator-side nature. It doesn't cover return values or error conditions, but for a state-clearing operation the description is adequate to select and invoke the tool 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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explicitly clarifies `target_app` as the app whose assignment state is cleared, and `dispatch_id` as the identifier for the assignment. However, it does not explain `app_id` (a required field) or `session_id` (default empty), leaving their roles ambiguous. Partial compensation for key parameters only.

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 'releases a specialist after its handoff has been verified' and specifies it clears `target_app`'s live assignment state for `dispatch_id`. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as 'the final step of the dispatch lifecycle' (send → accept → handoff → verify → clear), making it distinct from agents that send, accept, or verify.

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 explicitly states the condition 'after its handoff has been verified' and places the tool as the final step in the lifecycle (send → accept → handoff → verify → clear). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies it should be used after verify_handoff, and not before. The note 'orchestrator-side' adds an additional usage context.

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