clear_all

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses exactly what is deleted (all nodes/edges), what is preserved (snapshots, findings), and that an automatic snapshot is saved before execution with a usable snapshot_id for revert. This is strong behavioral disclosure 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?

Two short sentences: the first states the action and exclusions, the second adds the safety/revert mechanism. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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 parameterless destructive tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: scope, preserved data, and recovery path are all covered. It leaves unspecified the fate of related metadata such as styles or annotations, but the deletion scope and output schema make the core call safe and understandable.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. Baseline for parameterless tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 operation: delete all nodes and edges in the graph. It goes beyond a generic verb by adding scope ('all') and exclusions ('snapshots and findings are preserved'), which distinguishes it from related tools like clear_layer and individual delete_node/delete_edge.

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 communicates when this tool is appropriate: a full graph reset that keeps snapshots and findings, and it notes the automatic backup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the scope and preservation caveats provide clear context.

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