clear_context_feedback

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it declares a destructive bulk operation, states the confirm gate, and pre-emptively bounds the blast radius by saying it does not delete the code index or agent memory. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens when confirm is false (error vs. no-op).

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, front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope, followed by the confirmation rule and exclusions. No filler; every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and for a one-parameter destructive tool the description covers scope, the confirm requirement, and what is left untouched. The remaining gap is the absence of an irreversibility or permission statement, which matters for a workspace-wide wipe.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema presents confirm as optional with default false, which could mislead. The description corrects this by stating confirm must be true, adding meaning genuinely absent from the schema. It does not describe the failure mode when confirm is omitted or false.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Delete every explicit feedback record") plus scope ("for the current workspace"). The word "every" signals this is a bulk operation, distinguishing it in spirit from delete_context_feedback, but it never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 gating condition ("confirm must be true") tells the agent what it must supply, and bulk-delete semantics imply the use case. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over delete_context_feedback for targeted removals, nor any prerequisite or warning about the point of no return.

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