Reset any Android app to its initial state by clearing all user data, logs, and settings. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental data loss.
DESTRUCTIVE: clear all user data of an app (logs the user out, wipes settings). Requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| package_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the safety burden: it labels the tool DESTRUCTIVE, details effects (logout, settings wipe), and discloses the confirm requirement beyond the schema's default.
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 dense sentence front-loads the destructive warning and packs purpose, effects, and a parameter prerequisite without redundant wording.
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 two-parameter destructive action with an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It is only slightly incomplete by not stating what happens if confirm is not true, although 'Requires confirm=true' implies the operation will not proceed.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies confirm's role as a mandatory safety gate and ties package_name to the app being cleared, but it does not describe the expected package_name format or the behavior when confirm is false.
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 and resource ('clear all user data of an app') and adds concrete effects ('logs the user out, wipes settings'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like stop_app or clear_text.
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 use case is implied by the stated purpose, and the confirm=true precondition is an actionable guideline, but the description does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.