clear_data_registry_sources

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

Annotations cover safety (destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: sources remain cached/queryable until editor restart, the registry map is not updated, and the return includes save_error. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and limitation disclosure an agent needs beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the action, then caveats, then return shape. Every sentence carries weight; the 'Honest:' interjection is slightly informal but communicates a critical limitation efficiently.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the full return object, and it resolves the key ambiguity (clear vs. unregister) plus the required follow-up step. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter (registry_path) is fully documented in the schema, so the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Empty the DataSources[] array on a UDataRegistry and save the asset.' The scope (whole array) is clear enough to distinguish it from the single-item sibling remove_data_registry_source, though it never names that sibling 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 clear operational context: it warns that the operation does NOT unregister from the subsystem, and instructs the agent to call refresh_data_registry_map() afterward to force a re-read. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use when actual unregistration is wanted.

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