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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey that the tool clears the entire owner's history, which implies deletion. However, it does not state whether the action is irreversible, whether confirmation is needed, or what the result of the operation is.

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, concise sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and scope, which is ideal for such a simple tool.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is largely complete: it names the action, the resource, and the scope ('owner'). The main omissions are whether the operation is irreversible and whether it affects only the current owner's history, but the word 'dono' provides reasonable scoping.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses entirely on the action, which is the only meaningful context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 action and resource: 'Limpa o histórico inteiro do dono' (clears the owner's entire history). This clearly differentiates the tool from read-oriented siblings like get_history or chat_history by indicating a destructive mutation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. While the action is fairly self-explanatory, the description does not help an agent decide between clear_history and related history-related tools such as forget_watch or get_history.

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