clear_asset_flows

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose destructive implications, but it merely states the clear action without mentioning permanence, unrecoverability, or potential side effects on related entities. It also doesn't clarify whether 'all' is limited to assets and flows or could affect other model parts. This is a significant transparency gap for a destructive operation.

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 short but unnecessarily repeats the same statement: 'Clear all assets and flows from the system.' appears twice. This redundancy means one sentence does not earn its place. The structure with Args and Returns is clean, but the duplication prevents a higher score.

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 destructive tool, the description is too sparse. It does not mention whether confirmation is required, how other model data (e.g., assets or flows already linked to threats) is affected, or any way to recover after execution. The presence of an output schema and confirmation message helps, but the description lacks essential safety and scope context.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds value by mentioning the 'ctx' argument (for logging and error handling) and the return type (a confirmation message), which are not visible in the schema. This enriches understanding even though there are no formal parameters.

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 tool's action: 'Clear all assets and flows from the system.' This is a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'reset_asset_flows' or other 'clear_*' tools, so it misses the top score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'reset_asset_flows' or individual delete tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites, such as whether the user should export data first or whether the tool is intended for starting over. No 'when' or 'when not' information is provided.

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