purge_query_log

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the destruction scope (entries before the timestamp, or everything when omitted) and a confirmation requirement ('Only when the user asks for it'). It also bounds the blast radius ('Recorded facts are not touched'). It stops short of stating irreversibility or any permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and parameter semantics, followed by the safety constraint and scope boundary. No filler; every clause contributes.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the single parameter plus the no-argument case are both covered. The remaining gap for a destructive, annotation-free tool is whether the purge is recoverable, which the description does not address.

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 0% — the schema only says `before` is a nullable string defaulting to null. The description compensates by naming the ISO 8601 format and, importantly, the default semantics: omitting it deletes all entries. That is meaning the schema does not convey.

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 (delete query log entries) plus the scoping rule (before `before`, or all when omitted). It implicitly separates itself from the data-recording siblings by noting 'Recorded facts are not touched', though it never names `query_log` or another alternative directly.

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?

'Only when the user asks for it' gives a clear consent guardrail, which is real usage guidance for a destructive tool. However, it does not say when to prefer this over `query_log` inspection, `history`, or a revert path, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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