handoff_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('clear') but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and impact.

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 with two sentences that directly address functionality and parameter usage. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails (e.g., deletion, reset, or archival), potential consequences, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for safe and informed use.

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%, with the parameter 'key' documented as 'Optional: specific handoff key to clear.' The description adds minimal value by restating that if key is provided, it clears only that handoff; otherwise, it clears all. This aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional meaning or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('handoffs'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes between clearing a specific handoff versus all handoffs, which provides operational clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like handoff_list or handoff_restart, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implies usage by stating 'If key is provided, clears only that handoff. Otherwise clears all,' which gives some context on when to use different parameter configurations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like handoff_restart or handoff_merge, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving gaps in decision-making.

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