bridge_clear

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate the destructive nature. The description adds the purpose ('resetting state') and the scope ('all messages in a specific channel'), which provides some context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances (e.g., permanence, side effects on channel metadata) that are not already covered by annotations.

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, consisting of two short sentences that immediately convey the action and purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous information, and the key detail (the destructive action) is front-loaded.

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 tool with a single parameter, an output schema, and annotations that cover safety (destructive and idempotent hints), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and scope, and the output schema addresses return values. However, it does not explicitly warn about the irreversible nature of clearing all messages, although the destructiveHint annotation partially covers this. Minor gap but acceptable.

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 clarify the parameter semantics. The description only vaguely references 'a specific channel' without explicitly naming the 'channel' parameter or explaining its format, constraints, or how it is used to identify the channel. This adds minimal value over the bare schema definition, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role.

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 the resource 'all messages from a specific channel,' making the tool's function unambiguous. It adds a practical use case ('resetting state') that helps distinguish it from sibling tools like bridge_send, bridge_receive, and bridge_status, which serve different purposes.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('resetting state'), which implies a specific scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as for partial deletion or non-destructive operations. This is adequate guidance given the tool's simplicity, but it lacks explicit exclusions.

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