memory_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the irreversible nature ('no se puede deshacer'), which is a critical behavioral trait for a destructive operation. It also mentions the return value format. However, it doesn't cover potential side effects like impact on other tools or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise: three sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose, the second gives a critical warning, and the third specifies the return value. Each sentence earns its place by adding essential information.

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 high complexity (destructive, irreversible operation) and no annotations, the description does well by covering purpose, warning, and return value. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values further. A minor gap is the lack of explicit prerequisites or error handling, but it's largely complete.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as no compensation is needed.

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 ('Elimina TODAS las claves') and resource ('de la memoria persistente'), distinguishing it from siblings like memory_delete (which likely deletes specific keys) and memory_list (which lists keys). The verb 'Elimina' (deletes/removes) is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance with 'Usar con precaución: esta acción no se puede deshacer' (Use with caution: this action cannot be undone), clearly indicating when to be careful. It implicitly distinguishes from memory_delete by specifying 'TODAS las claves' (ALL keys), suggesting alternatives for partial deletion.

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