clear_app_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructive scope ('all data and cache'), which is genuinely useful, but omits irreversibility, whether the app must be stopped first, and any permission constraints required to perform the wipe.

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 compact sentence with the destructive verb and resource front-loaded, and the clarifying parenthetical placed after the core claim. Nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers what the operation does and its scope. The only meaningful omission is that the operation is irreversible and that all app state is lost permanently, which matters for a destructive tool with no annotations.

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 100% and the single package_name parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for schema-driven parameter documentation is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource (清除 = clear, 应用的所有数据和缓存 = all app data and cache) and pins the semantics with the parenthetical equivalence to the platform's 'Clear data' operation. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like force_stop_app or install_apk. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative sibling, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool to call when app data must be wiped, and the '相当于清除数据操作' note anchors it to a known user action. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g., use force_stop_app for a mere restart).

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