manus_webhook_events_clear

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('delete everything' with no filters) and the filtering behavior. It could mention irreversibility, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 concise sentences. The first states the action, the second explains the filter usage. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple tool (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior. However, it lacks mention of what the tool returns (e.g., success/error) or any confirmation message.

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 low (33%), with only 'before_received_at' described. The description adds that any combination of filters works, but does not explain the semantics of 'task_id' or 'event_type'. This only partially compensates for the schema gaps.

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 ('Delete webhook events') and the resource ('from the local store'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like webhook_events_list or webhook_delete by specifying 'local store' and the filtering capability. The phrase 'no filters = delete everything' further clarifies the scope.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Provide any combination of filters; no filters = delete everything.' It implies when to use (bulk deletion) and warns of the destructive default. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like webhook_delete (deletes webhook itself) or mention prerequisites.

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