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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it omits critical behavior: that the operation is destructive and irreversible, whether the log is per-mock or global, whether an owner token is required for authorization, and what is returned. Only the word "Empty" hints at data loss.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing is wasted or buried.

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, unannotated, no-output-schema tool, this is insufficient: it never says the clearing is irreversible, whether it is scoped to the slug's mock alone, or what happens if the mock doesn't exist. The agent has little to reason about beyond the verb.

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 coverage is 100% — the slug pattern, example, and the ownerToken parenthetical are all documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing and is not required to. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ("Empty") and resource ("the mock's request log"), so the agent knows exactly what it does. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like clear_rules, get_requests, or reset_state, which touch closely related state.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the alternatives: no mention of reset_state (which may clear more), clear_rules (which touches rules, not requests), or get_requests (read before clearing). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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