Clear captured events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the buffer is emptied and that the story is not reloaded, but does not state that the cleared contents are unrecoverable, whether subsequent get_events calls return empty, or what the call returns.

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the non-obvious side effect ('without reloading it') appended. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema mutation the description covers the essential effect and its scope on the open story. Remaining gaps are the return value and confirmation of irreversibility, which would matter more for a destructive buffer wipe but are minor at this 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is targetless and acts on the currently open story.

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 ('Empty') and resource ('captured-events buffer') scoped to 'the open story', and the qualifier 'without reloading it' separates it from reload/open_story semantics. An agent can distinguish it from get_events and dispatch_event on name plus description alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for the open story', which signals the prerequisite that a story must already be open, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives like get_events for inspecting the buffer before clearing it. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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