clear_webhook_queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions clearing the queue but does not detail side effects, such as whether this action is destructive, requires specific permissions, or affects other aspects of the document or webhooks. The return type is briefly mentioned but no behavioral constraints.

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 concise, consisting of a brief purpose statement, a usage scenario, and a structured Args/Returns section. No extraneous information is present, and the key information is front-loaded. However, it could be more structured with a clearer separation of guidelines.

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 lack of annotations and the single parameter, the description is minimally complete. It explains the purpose and outcome (returns a Dict with status and message), but omits crucial context about system state changes, prerequisites, error scenarios, and the irreversible nature of clearing a queue. For a destructive action, more completeness is expected.

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 0%, yet the description only rephrases the parameter name with 'doc_id: L'ID du document'. It adds no additional meaning, constraints, format, or examples beyond what the schema provides (string, required). This is insufficient for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 'Vide la file d'attente des webhooks' (clears the webhook queue) and the target resource 'pour un document' (for a document). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, list_webhooks, and modify_webhook.

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 a clear use case: 'Utile en cas d'accumulation de notifications non envoyées' (useful in case of accumulation of unsent notifications). It suggests when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other scenarios.

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