ecp_apps_flush_logs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Clear' communicates that the operation is destructive, but it does not disclose whether the log is truncated or deleted, whether the action is reversible, what impact it has on the running process, or whether special permissions are needed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the verb, target, and scope without redundancy.

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 one-parameter destructive action, the description names the target and the effect, which is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, the absence of annotations and any mention of consequences, return behavior, or process impact leaves meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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 schema only declares app_name as a string with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explicitly document the parameter. However, the phrase 'an app's ... log' implies that app_name identifies the target app, providing minimal semantic context beyond the bare 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 states a specific verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('an app's supervisor-managed process log'), which clearly distinguishes this from siblings like ecp_apps_tail_logs or file-based log tools. It also scopes the action to supervisor-managed logs, removing ambiguity.

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 ecp_apps_tail_logs or ecp_supervisor_restart_process. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or which situations call for flushing logs.

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