Clear an agent error

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and HTTP method (POST), suggesting a non-idempotent mutation. However, it does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by operational details. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's two parameters and existing output schema, the description lacks explanation of when clearing an error is appropriate, preconditions, or the meaning of the response. The auth class adds some context, but overall completeness is low.

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 description coverage is 50%—only the 'body' parameter has a description, and it is vague. The description does not mention or clarify any parameters, leaving the 'path.id' parameter undocumented. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 action 'Clear an agent error' and provides the HTTP operation and authorization class. It is specific to this tool and distinguishes it from siblings like pc_post_agents_by_id_pause or pc_post_agents_by_id_approve. However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes an agent error.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or context such as when an agent error occurs. The description lacks any usage direction.

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