history_clear

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's destructive nature ('삭제합니다' - deletes) and irreversible consequence ('되돌릴 수 없음' - cannot be undone), which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or what 'history' specifically refers to in this context.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of one sentence that states the action and a parenthetical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (destructive, irreversible action) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the core action and warning, but does not specify what 'history' entails (e.g., undo/redo stack, session data) or confirm successful deletion, which could leave ambiguity for an AI agent.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline score of 4 is given as it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by focusing on the tool's action and warning.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('삭제합니다' - deletes) and resource ('모든 히스토리' - all history). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like history_list, history_undo, and history_redo by focusing on deletion rather than listing or navigation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool through the warning note ('주의: 되돌릴 수 없음' - caution: cannot be undone), which implies it should be used when permanent deletion of all history is intended. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like history_list for viewing or when not to use it (e.g., for partial deletions).

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