clear_forwards

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that this is a destructive bulk removal of both forward and reverse rules, which is useful. However, it says nothing about required permissions/root, reversibility, or effects on active connections.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the scope-critical word 'ALL'. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a destructive, no-annotation tool with an undocumented parameter, the description leaves gaps around device targeting and operational prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'serial' parameter, so the schema provides no meaning. The description only hints at device targeting via 'for the device' and never explains what serial does or that it defaults to null (current/default device).

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 specific verb (remove/clear) and resource (forward and reverse rules), and the scope qualifier 'ALL' distinguishes it from the single-rule siblings remove_forward and remove_reverse. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'ALL' implies the bulk-clear use case versus individual removal, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of remove_forward/remove_reverse or list_forwards, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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