Clear all memory

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the permanent destructive nature ('PERMANENTLY delete'), the full scope ('ALL memory for ALL projects'), and the mandatory safety confirmation requirements (confirm=true and the exact phrase). This is thorough for a high-risk operation.

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 no filler. It conveys the essential safety warning first, then the parameter requirements. Every word earns its place.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: scope, permanence, and required safeguards. It allows an agent to safely invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter requirements but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. It simply restates that confirm must be true and confirmPhrase must be 'delete everything', which is already in the schema.

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 action ('PERMANENTLY delete') and resource ('ALL memory for ALL projects'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool delete_project_memory that likely targets a single project. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing to wipe all memory across projects) by highlighting 'ALL projects'. It does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_project_memory, but the scope differentiation is clear enough for an agent to infer the boundary.

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