neuron_clear_storage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the destructive nature ('Clear all') and that the operation is broad in scope. However, it misses a subtle behavioral trap: localStorage is per-origin, so clearing it for the current page also wipes storage for every other tab on that origin — the 'current page' framing is misleading. It also discloses no post-condition (page reload, confirmation, or empty return).

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?

One 13-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and uses 'all' to signal the destructive scope. There is zero wasted text, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 two-parameter tool with one enum, the coverage is mostly adequate, but two gaps remain: the origin-wide side effect of localStorage clearing is not addressed, and the description never links to sibling neuron_get_storage for verification before/after clearing. No output schema exists, so a brief note on what the tool returns (or that it returns nothing) 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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting both parameters including the default ('default: localStorage') and the enum values. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that type selects between the two storage kinds; per the rubric, baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the load and the description doesn't contradict or extend it.

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 specific verb ('Clear') with a specific resource ('localStorage or sessionStorage entries') and a scoping qualifier ('for the current page'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like neuron_get_storage (read) and neuron_clear_mocks (a different resource entirely), so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 the phrasing: the emphasized 'all' suggests this tool is for a full storage reset rather than targeted removal. However, the description offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no pointer to the read counterpart (neuron_get_storage), and no warning that partial clearing would require a different approach. The context is inferable but never stated.

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