Clear all recorded error details for a workspace while keeping reports already written. Use to reset diagnostics without affecting generated reports.
Delete every recorded error detail. Reports already written are kept.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does disclose the destructive action ('Delete every recorded error detail') and the carve-out that already-written reports are kept, which is genuinely useful. However, it does not address reversibility, permissions, or side effects beyond those two points.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the preservation caveat immediately following it. Every word earns its place.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits parameter semantics, reversibility, permission expectations, and any mention of the workspace scoping implied by the required workspaceId.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the required workspaceId parameter, but it never mentions it. The agent gets no help on what workspaceId refers to or how it constrains which diagnostics get deleted.
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 states a clear verb and resource ('Delete every recorded error detail') and adds a scoping note that reports are preserved. The sibling set includes get_diagnostics and set_diagnostics, and the destructive counterpart is implied by the verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_diagnostics or set_diagnostics. There is no mention of prerequisites, recoverability, or situations where clearing diagnostics would be inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.