clear_event_log

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the action is irreversible and all entries will be deleted, which is a critical behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any permissions or authentication requirements, but for a clear/delete operation, the irreversibility is the key risk.

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 action and target, followed by a critical warning. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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 3-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, irreversibility, and parameter semantics via the schema. It does not mention the response format (e.g., success or failure), but that is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-explained (log_id with auto-discovery, resource_id with examples and references to list tools, resource_type with enum meanings). The description itself adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Clear the event log') and the target resource ('system or BMC manager'), with an explicit note on the irreversible deletion. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_event_log, which only reads.

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 specifies the two resource types ('Systems' and 'Managers') and what they correspond to, giving clear context for when to use each. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the irreversibility warning implies a cautionary use case.

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