winops_evtlog_clear

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying exactly what is affected ('all events'), which log channel types are targeted, and the administrative privilege required. This provides the added context of auth needs and destruction scope that annotations alone do not fully convey.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then provides only essential supporting details: privilege requirement, return format, and an example. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 destructive tool, the description is complete: it states the action, the target, the required privilege, the return format, and provides an example. The output schema is also reflected in the return format section, so the agent has all necessary operational context.

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 already describes log_name as 'Log channel to clear' with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to restate it. The example 'clear(log_name="Application")' adds concrete value by showing a real channel name and the expected invocation format.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Clear all events from a Windows Event Log channel.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like winops_evtlog_query, winops_evtlog_list, and winops_evtlog_export, all of which are non-destructive.

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 action and a key prerequisite ('Requires Administrator'), giving enough context for when the tool should be invoked. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive nature and simple purpose make the usage context obvious.

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