new_suzyq_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it clearly discloses the important side effect: 'This will clear the current conversation history and start fresh.' This is essential behavioral information that goes beyond the tool name and meaningfully warns the agent about the destructive reset.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is stated first, followed by the critical side effect. Every word contributes meaning.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides all essential context: what the tool does and the irreversible impact on conversation history. Nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything. With no parameters, the description need not explain parameter details, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.

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 action ('Start a new conversation with SuzyQ') and the resource affected ('current conversation history'). It differentiates from siblings by specifying that this operation clears history and starts fresh, which is distinct from asking a question or retrieving history.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a fresh conversation is needed and the current history should be discarded. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like ask_suzyq or get_suzyq_conversation_history, nor does it 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.