airflow_clear_task_instances

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with a clear 'destructive' label. It explains the dry_run parameter (default true, must be set false to mutate) and the return/error formats. However, it does not mention authorization requirements or side effects beyond the dry_run flag.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence intro, followed by parameter and return bullets. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague statements.

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 14 parameters, no required ones, and an output schema, the description covers parameters and return value thoroughly. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., permissions) or edge cases, but for a complex tool it is largely complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing a detailed bullet list for all 14 parameters, including optionality, mutual exclusivity (instance vs ui_url), and the effect of dry_run. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 the action ('Clear task instances') and the resource ('for a DAG across one or more runs'), with the note 'destructive' distinguishing it from read-only tools. Sibling tools like airflow_clear_dag_run are implicitly differentiated by the focus on task instances rather than entire runs.

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 lists many parameters and the dry_run behavior but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like airflow_clear_dag_run or airflow_get_task_instance. The 'destructive' label and filter semantics imply use cases, but direct comparisons are absent.

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