clear_cluster_tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the endpoint path but never explains what actually gets destroyed or how the six scope booleans control which categories of cluster tasks are removed — the single most important behavioral fact for a destructive call. The "JSON-encoded string fields must remain strings" note is generic boilerplate that doesn't apply to the boolean fields here.

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?

Three short sentences, so there is no bloat, but the first merely echoes the tool name and the third is a templated serialization note of dubious relevance to a boolean-only payload. Brevity here stems from omission rather than disciplined editing.

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, nested-object, zero-coverage tool with no output schema, the description leaves the critical questions unanswered: which scope flags must be set, whether the call is scoped to a cluster/node or global, and what the response confirms. Annotations cover the safety hints, but nothing else compensates for the missing semantics.

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 only one top-level parameter but 0% schema description coverage and six undocumented nested booleans (queue, active, claims, aliases, running, runtime_fields), the description needed to carry the meaning. Instead it offers only the generic "Supply API fields in body," adding nothing about what each scope flag selects or whether omitting a flag means 'not cleared' or 'clear all'.

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?

"clear Cluster Tasks" largely restates the tool name, and the only added specificity comes from the endpoint path "DELETE /cluster/tasks", which signals a purge operation. It never disambiguates from the large family of sibling clear/stop/delete tools (clear_project_cache, clear_global_runner_cache, stop_template_tasks, delete_global_task), so an agent cannot tell precisely what resource is purged or at what scope.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g., list_cluster_tasks to inspect first, or stop_template_tasks vs. this purge). The only usage-ish instruction is "Supply API fields in body," which is a formatting note, not selection guidance.

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