clear_orders_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the destructive nature ('Permanently clear'), the confirm-gating logic, the exact behavior when confirmation is false (a structured refusal, not an error), the underlying POST call, and the unchanged JSON response.

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 compact but every sentence contributes: purpose, confirmation gate, no-op behavior, endpoint mapping, and response format. It is front-loaded and free of filler, with technical references that add verification value.

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, confirm-gated tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains prerequisites, runtime behavior, side effects, and the exact return value, leaving no ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema only defines `confirm` with a default of false and no description, so 0% schema coverage leaves the description to carry the meaning. The description fully explains that `confirm` must be exactly `true` and what happens otherwise, making the parameter behavior completely clear.

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 opens with 'Permanently clear OctoBot's stored orders history' – a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like clear_trades_history and clear_portfolio_history. The wording also conveys irreversibility, further clarifying intent.

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 clearly states the operation and the critical prerequisite: 'If `confirm` is not exactly `true`, no OctoBot call is made at all'. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative clear_* siblings, but the resource is unambiguous and the confirmation gate is a concrete usage condition.

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