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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that all data and cache are cleared and uses the 'Clear Storage' analogy, making the irreversible, reset-like behavior evident. It does not mention side effects like logging the user out, but the core destructive action is transparent.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core action is stated upfront, and the Settings equivalence provides useful context without bloating the description.

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 tool with no output schema and two well-described parameters, the description covers the essential behavior: it specifies the Android platform and that data/cache are cleared. Minor gaps like explicit irreversibility are not critical given the clear wording.

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 input schema already describes both parameters (udid, packageName) at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds no parameter-specific semantic value beyond the schema, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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 (clear all data and cache), the resource (an app on an Android device), and provides a real-world equivalent ('Clear Storage'). This unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose and sets it apart from sibling tools like app_delete or device_clear_app_locale.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as app_delete, device_uninstall_app, or device_clear_app_locale. No conditions, exclusions, or preferential use cases are mentioned, leaving the agent to 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.