clear_queue

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does disclose the important behavioral nuance that the currently playing track is preserved. However, it does not state that this is a destructive/irreversible bulk removal, whether it affects history, or whether it requires an active player.

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; the scope exception is included in the same breath as the action rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and with no parameters the description only needs to convey scope and effect — which it does. The remaining gap is the lack of any warning that the cleared queue is lost irreversibly.

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; the baseline for a no-param tool 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?

States a specific verb (clears) and resource (queue/upcoming tracks), plus the key scope exception that the currently playing track survives. That detail alone separates it from get_current_queue (read) and add_to_queue (append), though it does not name siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer you'd call this to reset the queue before adding new tracks, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. skip_to_next_track) guidance.

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