Clear remote-spy history

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

The description claims 'idempotency=idempotent-write', but the annotations declare idempotentHint=false. These directly conflict on a stated behavioral attribute, so this is an Annotation Contradiction. Otherwise the description does add value (state is MUTATING, persistent executor-side observer state changes, block/ignore retained, monotonic call IDs), but the explicit contradiction triggers the score-1 rule.

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?

Purpose is well front-loaded ('WRITES LIVE GAME STATE. Clears...'), and the labeled metadata block is easy to scan. However, boilerplate restatement of the signature and the generic tail ('On failure: inspect tool-schema for exact fields, defaults...') do not earn their place for this specific tool, diluting conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: safety profile, prerequisites, produced artifacts (bounded-event-snapshot, operation-receipt), and a verification route (assert-state). The only gap is the unreliable idempotency claim, which is a correctness issue rather than a missing-information one.

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 enum values, default, and thread-identity semantics are already documented in the schema. The description merely restates the signature ('{ engine: "cobalt" | "ketamine"?, threadContext: number? }') without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 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 and resource: 'Clears the selected engine's MCP buffer and GUI history.' It also scopes the operation by noting what is retained (block/ignore settings) and that capture continues, which distinguishes it from siblings like block-remote, ignore-remote, and get-remote-spy-logs. An agent can identify the action without opening the schema.

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?

Provides real invocation context: 'Phase: act', 'Requires: active-client, explicit-mutation-approval', and a follow-up action 'Verify with: assert-state.' This tells the agent when the tool is eligible and what prerequisites must hold. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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