rememb_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's destructive nature ('Permanently delete', 'Irreversible — no recovery is possible'), safety mechanism ('Requires confirm=true as a safety guard'), and scope ('ALL memory entries at once'). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling or system state changes beyond deletion.

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 efficiently structured with four sentences that each add value: stating the action and irreversibility, specifying the safety parameter, differentiating from the sibling tool, and providing usage context. There is no redundant or wasted information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, guidelines, and behavioral transparency. It could be more complete by mentioning what 'memory entries' entail or potential confirmation feedback, but it adequately addresses the core context given the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (confirm). The description adds context by explaining its purpose as a 'safety guard', but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Permanently delete ALL memory entries at once') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool rememb_delete, which removes a single entry by ID. It explicitly identifies the resource (memory entries) and scope (all at once).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Only use this to fully reset the memory store'), when not to use it (implied by the alternative), and names the alternative tool ('Use rememb_delete to remove a single entry by ID instead'). It also includes a prerequisite ('Requires confirm=true as a safety guard').

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