reject_all_files_force

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that journal tracking is cleared regardless of clean reversion and that files may be left in an inconsistent state — strong destructive-behavior disclosure. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or reversibility options, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Labeled sections (What it does, When to use, When NOT to use, Side effects, Parameters, Returns) are well organized and front-loaded with the 'Destructive + Forceful' warning. The journal-clearing behavior is stated twice (opening line and side effects), a small redundancy, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

Given zero parameters, a present output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, exclusions, side effects, and parameter count — everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Return values needn't be explained since an output schema exists.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. 'Parameters: None' correctly and explicitly confirms this, adding the only clarification needed.

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 and resource ('forcefully attempts rollback and clears the journal unconditionally') and distinguishes itself from the sibling reject_all_files by scope and failure tolerance. An agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' (only when reject_all_files fails due to missing backups or corruption) and 'When NOT to use' (may leave files inconsistent; use reject_all_files for safe rollback). Names the alternative and the selecting condition directly.

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