Workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short: it does not disclose that clearing is destructive and irreversible, whether any confirmation or undo exists, or how targeted clearing (name/names) differs from clear_all. Only the plain verb "clear" signals mutability, and nothing warns that user data may be lost.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficiently sized. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool, but no sentence is wasted or padded.

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 a five-value action enum and is destructive by nature, yet with no annotations and an output schema that only covers returns, the description should explain what each action destroys and whether operations are reversible. Omitting globals entirely and giving no risk framing leaves the definition incomplete for a data-destroying tool.

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 the schema already documents name, names, and the action enum with its own description ("Clear workspace / console / globals"). The description adds no interpretation of the enum values or how name/names interact with each action, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ("Clear") and resources ("workspace variables", "the script console"), which is far more informative than the generic name/title "Workspace". However, it omits the globals-clearing capability that accounts for three of the five enum values (clear_global, clear_all_global), so the stated purpose under-describes the tool's actual scope.

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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings like object_action, run_action, or add, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description only implies usage through the verb "Clear", leaving the agent to infer how to choose among the five actions and among the ~19 siblings.

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