clear_errors_and_warnings

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 the action ('clear') but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens after clearing (e.g., confirmation, response format). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('clear all or specific element's errors/warnings') with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), response expectations, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (id, clearErrors, clearWarnings) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value by implying the optional nature of 'id' ('all or specific element's'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details 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 verb ('clear') and resource ('errors/warnings') with optional targeting ('all or specific element's'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggle_error' or 'get_errors_and_warnings', which would require more specific language about clearing versus toggling or retrieving.

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 such as 'toggle_error' or 'get_errors_and_warnings', nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description implies usage for clearing errors/warnings but lacks context for decision-making.

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