clear_threat_actors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'clears all threat actors' implies removal, it does not explicitly state that the action is destructive, irreversible, or has side effects. There is no mention of permission requirements or impact on related entities.

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 contains redundancy: 'Clear all threat actors.' is immediately restated as 'This tool clears all threat actors from the threat model.' The Args section for a tool with no schema parameters adds minimal value. It could be more concise.

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 no parameters and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the main action and return value. However, it omits critical context such as destructive nature and how it differs from reset_threat_actors, leaving gaps in overall completeness.

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, which earns a baseline of 4 per the rubric. The description mentions 'ctx' in an Args section, but this is likely implementation detail rather than a user-facing schema parameter. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 verb 'clear' and the resource 'all threat actors', making the primary purpose obvious. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool reset_threat_actors, which may perform a similar bulk operation, so it loses a point for lack of differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_threat_actor (single) or reset_threat_actors. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or scenarios where one should choose this over sibling tools.

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