clarik_memory_clear

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It labels the action as 'clear' but does not clarify whether it is permanent, what scope is affected (current project vs. projectPath parameter), or any side effects. A minor contradiction exists between 'current project' in description and the optional projectPath parameter.

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 sentence of 12 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose without extraneous 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?

Given no output schema and a destructive operation, the description lacks information about what happens after clearing (e.g., success message, affected count). It also does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., project existence) or how the tool handles the 'all' category.

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 coverage is 100%, so schema already defines the parameter details (enum for category, string for projectPath). The description adds only a rephrasing of the enum options ('by category or clear all') and mentions 'for the current project', which is ambiguous. It does not explain the meaning of each category or the purpose of projectPath.

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 action (clear) and resource (memories), and specifies two modes: by category or all. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like clarik_memory_archive (archive vs delete) and clarik_memory_edit (edit vs clear).

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 implies usage for removing memories but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archive), nor does it mention prerequisites or caution about irreversibility.

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