reject_all_files_force

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds the crucial nuance beyond that: the journal is cleared even if some rollbacks fail, and files may be left inconsistent. That is exactly the consequence an agent needs before choosing the forceful path over the safe one.

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 header structure (what/when/when-not/side effects/returns) is front-loaded and scannable, with the destructive warning first. There is minor redundancy between the opening 'Destructive + Forceful' line, the 'What it does' sentence, and the 'Side effects' line restating the same unconditional-clear behavior.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the decision criteria, the risk, and the fallback, and an output schema already exists so return details need not be expanded. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 zero parameters, so there is no semantics to convey; the description's 'Parameters: None.' correctly confirms this. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies, with no added meaning possible.

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 and resource ('forcefully attempts rollback and clears the journal unconditionally') and immediately contrasts it with the non-force sibling reject_all_files. An agent can distinguish it from approve_all_files and reject_all_files without opening any schema.

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?

It explicitly states the trigger condition ('only when reject_all_files fails due to missing backups or file corruption') and names the safe alternative to use otherwise. Both the when and the when-not are spelled out with the specific failure mode that selects this tool.

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