clear_conversation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive behavior ('Deletes'), side effects ('Frees memory and resets context'), and output expectations ('Returns confirmation or 'not found' message'). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, preventing a perfect score.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage and context, all in three efficient sentences. Minor improvements could include bullet points for clarity, but it avoids redundancy and wastes no words.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter context. It could enhance completeness by specifying output format details or error scenarios, but it adequately supports tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's source ('conversationId from start_conversation or chat response'), which provides context beyond the schema's generic description. It doesn't fully detail format or constraints, but this extra guidance merits a score above baseline.

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 specific action ('Deletes specified conversation session and all associated message history') and resource ('conversation history'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cleanup_all_files' or 'delete_file' which handle different resources. The title-like opening 'CLEAR CONVERSATION HISTORY' reinforces the purpose without being tautological.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use when switching topics or cleaning up after completion' specifies when to use it, and 'Pass conversationId from start_conversation or chat response' indicates prerequisites. It distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on conversation history, not files or batches.

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