memkernel_clear_notice

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuine behavioral trait: the clearing is not restored by an old import, which hints at persistence/idempotency semantics against memkernel_import_notices. It still omits whether only the posting agent may clear, what happens on an unknown or already-cleared notice_id, and whether the effect is immediately visible to other agents.

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, action stated first, caveat second; nothing is padded. The phrase "an old import" is slightly cryptic but does real work for a distributed-memory tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and an undocumented identifier parameter the description leaves too much open: ownership/auth requirements, error behavior, and the relation to the surrounding notice lifecycle tools are all unaddressed.

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 single required parameter notice_id has 0% schema description coverage — only a bare title "Notice Id" — and the description never mentions it at all. An agent must infer where the identifier comes from (presumably post_notice or list_notices) with no textual support.

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?

"Clear your notice" pairs a verb with the resource, and the tool name distinguishes it from post_notice/list_notices/export_notices. However, "clear" is ambiguous — it does not say whether the notice is deleted, dismissed, or marked resolved, nor what state the target ends in.

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?

"after finishing" gives an implied trigger condition, which is better than nothing. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as post_notice (to create) or list_notices (to inspect before clearing).

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