clear_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses exactly what gets destroyed, the built-in items are marked removed, self-purchased items are deleted, and history/review tuning is cleared. It also discloses the confirm-before-execute safeguard and the first-call preview behavior, which is strong transparency for a destructive tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the scenario, states the full effect, then gives the post-condition and parameter rule. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-boolean-parameter destructive tool with an output schema available, the description is complete: it defines the action, the scope, the safety mechanism, the preview flow, and the recovery/import path. No critical call-relevant information is missing.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It fully explains the single `confirm` parameter: it must be True to actually execute, it prevents accidental triggering, and the first call returns a preview. This is complete semantic coverage.

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 uses a clear verb, 清空 (clear), and precisely defines the affected scope: all inventory (built-in and self-purchased), drinking history, and review tuning. This explicitly distinguishes it from the single-item sibling tools like remove_tea and undo_record.

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?

It provides a concrete trigger scenario, 「我搬到了外地」, and explains the intended post-condition: the user can batch-import a new tea list afterward. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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