device.clear_app_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that this is a device mutation requiring approval and that it is dangerous, which is valuable. However, it does not explain that the operation is destructive and irreversible, what specific data is removed, or what happens to the app after clearing.

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 short and front-loaded with risk and mutation tags before the action. It contains no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of important usage and consequence details, so it is concise but not fully informative.

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?

This is a destructive device tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to explain the safety profile and invocation context thoroughly. The tags 'approval required', 'device mutation', and 'risk:dangerous' help, but the description does not state preconditions, irreversibility, or parameter semantics, leaving an agent under-informed for a high-risk action.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. It only loosely maps to packageName by saying 'for an Android package' and gives no meaning for the optional serial parameter or expectations around package naming/format. This is minimal compensation for an otherwise undocumented schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Clear app data for an Android package.' This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like device.uninstall_app and device.install_app, since clearing app data is a distinct reset operation rather than removing or installing the app.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or what preconditions must hold, such as the package being installed or the device being online. The risk tags indicate approval and mutation, but they do not explain usage context or alternatives.

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