comfy_clear_history

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

The description explicitly states it is destructive and cannot be undone, complementing the destructiveHint annotation. It also explains the confirm parameter's behavior (false triggers elicitation, true skips prompt), providing operational transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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 succinct, comprising two clear sections: purpose and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 destructive action with one parameter and no required fields, the description covers the action, its irreversible consequence, and the parameter's role. It is complete for an agent to safely invoke the tool, even without detailing 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by detailing the confirm parameter: false means explicit confirmation via elicitation, true skips the prompt. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's default value.

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 clears ALL execution history, explicitly distinguishing it from partial deletion or queue clearing by emphasizing 'ALL' and destructive nature. This differentiates it from siblings like comfy_delete_history and comfy_clear_queue.

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 does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-to-use guidance relative to other history tools. While the 'ALL' scope implies a full reset scenario, it does not contrast with comfy_delete_history or comfy_clear_queue, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

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