Evac clear agents

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description contributes only the 'all' quantity, without stating whether the wipe is recoverable (e.g., via shape_undo/project_undo) or what state agents are left in.

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 operative sentence is a tight imperative with the destructive scope front-loaded. However, the second line is an unformatted rule citation that reads as stray boilerplate and consumes space without aiding invocation.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the destructive profile, very little is required of the description. It is minimally sufficient, but a bulk-destructive clear-all tool would benefit from a reversibility or post-state note.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource with scope ('Remove all evacuation agents'), which clearly distinguishes it from the single-agent sibling evac_remove_agent and the additive evac_add_agents_batch. The trailing rules line adds no clarifying purpose but does not obscure the core meaning.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this versus evac_remove_agent (single) or evac_remove_stair, nor any note on prerequisites, confirmation, or undo. The appended '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-001' reference points at a knowledge-search tool but gives the agent no actionable selection guidance.

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