memory_events_clear

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

The description states the action (mark as consumed) and return value (count of cleared events), but lacks details on side effects such as whether events are permanently deleted or can be re-marked. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 extremely concise with two sentences covering purpose, parameters, and return. No wasted words.

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 single-parameter operation, the description is largely complete. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid event IDs) and does not leverage the output schema to clarify return structure further.

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 parameter `event_ids` is described as 'List of event IDs to mark as consumed', which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title but does not provide constraints (e.g., valid range, required format). Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates.

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 uses the verb 'mark as consumed' and resource 'events', accurately reflecting the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling `memory_events_poll` by focusing on consumption rather than polling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `memory_events_poll`. The description does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or appropriate contexts.

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