history_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly indicates the tool deletes history (mutating/destructive), but does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects on other data. While not misleading, it only partially carries the transparency burden.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the primary action and clearly mentions the optional filtering. Every word earns its place.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the action, the optional condition, and the parameter's meaning. It does not describe the return value (e.g., success message or count), but that may be unnecessary given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema. Slightly more context (like a note that the action is permanent) would make it fully complete.

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 full description for the only parameter 'before' (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the phrase 'solo las anteriores a una fecha' which reinforces the parameter's purpose, but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. No additional semantics like format examples or constraints are given.

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 tool's purpose: 'Limpia el historial de consultas' (clears the query history), with an optional date filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like history_list (which lists history) and other mutating tools. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage: use this tool to clear history, optionally filtered by date. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'use history_list to view, use history_clear to delete'). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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