clear_transactions_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the destructive permanent effect, the no-op when unconfirmed, the mapping to `POST /api/clear_transactions_history`, and the exact return body. It even clarifies that the unconfirmed refusal is a normal return, not an error.

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, then gating behavior, then endpoint/return details. The verification notes about re-confirming against source and 'reproduced live this session' are informative but slightly verbose for an agent selecting the tool; they could be trimmed without losing action-guiding 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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation, the confirmation requirement, the exact HTTP mapping, the refusal path, and the exact success response body. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single `confirm` parameter. It fully explains the semantics: `confirm` must be exactly `true` for any action, otherwise no call is made and a structured refusal is returned. This is sufficient despite the schema's lack of property descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('clear') and resource ('OctoBot's stored transactions history'), and adds the critical qualifier 'permanently'. This distinguishes it from sibling clear-tools by resource and permanence without requiring schema inspection.

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 confirm-gating behavior is explicitly described: if `confirm` is not exactly `true`, no OctoBot call is made and a structured refusal is returned. This is clear usage guidance, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like `clear_trades_history` or `clear_orders_history`.

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