flush_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the destructive consequence ("device history is lost") and the safe preview-by-default behavior. It does not mention permissions or broader system impact, but the core mutation behavior is clear.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. The destructive effect and confirm behavior are front-loaded and easy to act on.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description provides everything needed to invoke it safely: scope, destructive effect, and preview/confirm behavior. Return values are covered by the output schema.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the single parameter is fully explained: confirm=true triggers the actual clear operation, while the default or false produces a preview. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare boolean parameter name.

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 and resource: "Clear Pi-hole's network device table." It is clear that this operates on the whole network device table rather than a single device, which helps distinguish it from delete_network_device, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool.

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 gives important operational guidance: "Preview unless confirm=true," telling the agent the default is a safe preview. However, it does not explain when to use this over list_network_devices or delete_network_device, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites.

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