clear_operation_history

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load, and it does the most important part well: a WARNING that the operation is destructive, irreversible, and permanently deletes undo/redo history. It omits permissions/auth requirements and scope side effects, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose followed immediately by the destructive warning, which is the right ordering. The Parameters/Returns sections are somewhat redundant against the schema and no output schema exists, but the whole is short and readable.

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?

Complete for a two-parameter destructive tool: it conveys the destructive nature, the required confirmation flag, and the return fields in the absence of an output schema. Missing only auth/permission expectations, which would round it out.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including confirmClear's 'Must be true' semantics. The description's parameter section largely restates the schema rather than adding format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Clear all operation history for a project.' This clearly distinguishes it from retrieval siblings like get_operation_history and manipulation siblings like undo/redo. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it lands at a strong 4.

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?

Usage is implied by 'all operation history for a project,' but the description never says when to prefer this over undo/redo, get_operation_history, or jump_to_operation. With no exclusions or alternatives named, this is adequate-but-incomplete guidance.

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