memory_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It warns 'DANGER ZONE' and requires explicit confirmation, which is strong disclosure for a destructive action. It could more explicitly state irreversibility or lack of undo, but 'Wipe ALL' implies permanence. The description adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The purpose is stated first, followed by the critical safety requirement, then the alternative action. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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 tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers what, when, and safety. It lacks explicit mention of irreversibility or that all memory content is permanently destroyed, but the warning and 'Wipe ALL' cover the essential risks. A 4 reflects good completeness for the tool's complexity.

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% for the single boolean parameter, which already states 'Must be true to wipe.' The description reinforces this with 'requires confirm:true' but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 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 ('Wipe ALL memories') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like memory_search, memory_add, and memory_export. The scope 'ALL' makes the destructive nature obvious and separates it from more selective operations like memory_forget.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by mandating 'confirm:true' and suggesting 'memory_export first' as a safety alternative. This tells the agent exactly what is required before invoking and routes to a safer sibling when appropriate.

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