clear_session_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The parenthetical 'keeps the run-id' adds useful scope detail beyond annotations, clarifying what survives the clear, but the description says nothing about what happens to the journal content, recoverability, or auth needs.

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 short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the key constraint. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but thin. It omits when to use it and any notion of the effect on the journal content, leaving minor gaps for an agent to resolve.

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% and the single optional 'session' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no detail about the parameter (e.g., default vs named session behavior beyond what the schema states).

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?

Clear specific verb (clears) plus resource (session journal) and scope qualifier (keeps the run-id), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_session, session_diagnostics, or recover_session. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., how this differs from recover_session or session_diagnostics). The agent must infer the scenario in which clearing the journal is appropriate.

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