clear_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destructive scope explicitly: the collection and all vectors are deleted. It stops short of stating irreversibility, required permissions, or what state the index is left in (e.g., whether a reindex is required), which are the high-value disclosures for a destructive tool.

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 with zero filler, and the destructive consequence is front-loaded immediately after the purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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, unreversible-looking operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed but omits reversibility, permission requirements, and post-clear state. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would need to act safely.

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?

There is a single required boolean, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema itself stating 'Confirmation to clear index (must be true)'. The description adds nothing about confirm, so the baseline of 3 for fully documented parameters 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?

States a specific verb (clear) and resource (all indexed data / the vector database collection and vectors), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like search_code or reindex_changed_files. It does not, however, explicitly draw a boundary against reset_state, which is a plausible alternative for wiping state.

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 never says when this should be used versus alternatives such as reindex_changed_files or reset_state, nor does it state prerequisites or consequences for the calling workflow. Usage must be fully inferred from the name.

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