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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds what the annotations cannot: cleared data 'cannot be recovered from here', a preview must precede the write, confirm: true must accompany the token, and the token is single-use with a ten-minute expiry. The idempotentHint=true annotation is consistent with re-clearing the same region. No contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences ordered by importance: what it does, that it is irreversible, when to use it, and what safety protocol it demands. No filler or restatement of the title.

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, six-parameter, nested-body mutation with no output schema, it covers the irreversible effect, the two-step approval flow, and the body shape. It does not describe what the clear call returns or whether verification of the cleared region is possible, a minor remaining gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining that body is Oracle's clear shape containing the point of view and the members to clear, which tells an agent what to put in an otherwise free-form additionalProperties object. It still says nothing about connection/application defaults, but the schema covers those.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — clears a region of a cube — and pins it to the concrete endpoint (POST /plantypes/{cube}/clear). That is enough to tell it apart from export_data_slice and import_data_slice in practice, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition — 'Use it only when the user asks to wipe a region before a reload' — which functions as both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use rule. It also specifies the mandatory preview-then-confirm sequence, so the agent knows the invocation is two-step.

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