willys_plan_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the destructive action (resetting the plan) and a key behavioral boundary (the cart is preserved), which is valuable contextual safety information. However, it does not explicitly mention irreversibility or the confirm requirement, though the schema covers the latter.

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?

A single, front-loaded Swedish sentence immediately states the action, followed by a clarifying negation about the cart. No filler or repetition; it 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 simple destructive reset operation, the description covers the core action and the most likely source of confusion (cart vs. plan). The schema supplies parameter details and the confirm requirement, so the missing return-value information is not a critical gap, though a note on irreversibility would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including the confirm enum constraint. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format beyond restating the cart-preservation effect already present in the confirm property description, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Nollställ' (reset) with the resource 'planen' (the plan), clearly identifying this as a plan-clearing operation. It also disambiguates from cart-related siblings by explicitly stating it does not empty the cart.

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 implies usage—clearing an entire plan—but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives like plan_remove_recipe or cart tools. It provides a 'when not' signal by clarifying the cart remains intact, but lacks a direct comparison or alternative naming.

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