agent_clear

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

The description discloses the core behavioral effect: clearing assignment state and freeing the agent for the next packet. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with the mutation described; destructiveHint=false is consistent because the action is a lifecycle reset, not a destructive delete). It adds context beyond annotations by explaining the positive outcome (ready for next packet) and the lifecycle placement, though it omits details like idempotency, error behavior, or what happens if called incorrectly.

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 dense paragraph that packs the action, condition, and lifecycle context without fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficient in phrasing. A minor structuring improvement would be splitting the condition from the effect, but overall it is concise and well-ordered.

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?

The description supplies the essential lifecycle context and effect, but it lacks explanations for two parameters and does not address edge cases like repeated calls, missing verification, or failure conditions. Given that the tool is a mutation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the missing parameter semantics leave a notable gap in completeness, though the workflow context compensates partially.

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 schema has 0% property coverage, so the description must shoulder the burden. It explains target_app (the app whose assignment state is cleared) and dispatch_id (the dispatch being cleared), but leaves app_id and session_id unexplained. Without clarification, an agent may confuse app_id with target_app or guess at the role of session_id. Partial coverage warrants a below-baseline score.

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 explicitly states the action (release a specialist / clear live assignment state) and the specific resources affected (target_app's assignment for dispatch_id). It also frames the tool within the dispatch lifecycle (send → accept → handoff → verify → clear), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_handoff and agent_dispatch_result. An agent can immediately grasp what this tool does and why it differs.

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 provides a precise condition for use: only after the handoff has been verified. It also identifies itself as the final step of the dispatch lifecycle, giving the agent an unambiguous ordering relative to other operations. This directly answers when to call the tool and implicitly warns against calling it before verification.

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