Limpiar entries enviadas

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

With no annotations, the description conveys the destructive nature (Borra) and specifies the exact condition (status 'sent') and scope (local bitácora). It adds value by clarifying it deletes all such entries, though it doesn't state irreversibility or confirmation prompts. Acceptable transparency.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action, no redundancy. It conveys the purpose and scope efficiently.

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?

The tool has no parameters or output schema, so the description only needs to convey the action and scope. It does that clearly. It could mention irreversibility, but the word 'Borra' implies deletion. It's complete for a simple destructive operation.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema is complete (100% coverage). The description adds context about what gets deleted (all 'sent' entries), which goes slightly beyond the schema, but since there are no params to explain, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Borra' = deletes) and specifies the resource ('entries con status sent' from the local log), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_entry (which deletes a specific entry) and list_entries. The scope is unambiguous.

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 (when you want to clear sent entries) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like delete_entry or log_entry. It gives context (local bitácora) but no exclusions or alternative mentions, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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