clear_area

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is destructive, requires both confirm: true on retry and a user press within 60s, and explains the needsConfirmation retry pattern. This is unusually complete for a destructive mutation 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and destructiveness, then gives the confirmation protocol, then lists parameters. It is compact with no wasted sentences.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, it provides enough context to invoke correctly: scope, destructiveness, confirmation prerequisites, retry behavior, and parameters. Missing return-value details are minor because no output schema exists.

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%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It identifies area as required and confirm as boolean, and explains confirm's workflow, but it does not explain the area enum values (localStorage/sessionStorage) beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: clear an entire area (every key) for the active tab's origin. That scope implicitly separates it from selective siblings like delete_keys, but it does not explicitly name or compare against them.

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?

It clearly explains the intended use case—clearing all keys in a storage area—and gives the required confirmation workflow, including the retry and user-approval steps. It does not explicitly state when to use a sibling such as delete_keys instead.

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