clear_portfolio_history

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 so thoroughly. It discloses the permanent/destructive nature, the confirm-gating mechanism, the fact that a false confirm results in a structured refusal rather than an error, the exact HTTP endpoint, and the unchanged response body. This is exemplary transparency for a destructive 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 well-structured and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. However, it contains some internal references (ADR-0003, NFR-8, module docstring, '[V]') that are likely noise for an AI agent and add little actionable value for tool selection or invocation.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the confirmation requirement, the no-op behavior when unconfirmed, the endpoint mapping, and the expected response body. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand the consequences.

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 lone parameter confirm has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must supply all meaning. It explains that confirm must be exactly true for any OctoBot call to occur, and that otherwise a refusal is returned normally. This gives the agent far more than the schema's default value of false could.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently clear OctoBot's stored historical portfolio values.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling clear tools like clear_orders_history and clear_trades_history by narrowing the target to portfolio history only.

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?

While the description does not explicitly name alternative tools, it provides strong contextual guidance: it is the tool for permanently clearing portfolio history, and it requires confirm to be exactly true before any call is made. The confirm-gated behavior is a clear operational condition, though no when-not-to-use or alternative comparisons are stated.

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