clear_memories

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 communicates the destructive nature ('cannot be undone') and the need for caution, which are critical for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error conditions that would further inform usage.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds crucial behavioral context, making every word earn its place without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the irreversible nature but lacks details on what 'memories' entail, confirmation mechanics beyond the schema, or expected outcomes, leaving some contextual information incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'confirm' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 ('Clear') and resource ('all stored memories'), distinguishing it from siblings like delete_memory (which targets individual memories) and list_memories (which is read-only). It precisely defines the scope as 'all' rather than selective deletion.

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 clear context with 'Use with caution as this cannot be undone,' indicating high-risk scenarios. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternatives like delete_memory for targeted removal or list_memories for verification, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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