sassy_audit_clear

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavior: it is mutating yet non-destructive, requires confirm='YES', renames specific files with a timestamped pattern, logs the rotation into the fresh log, and preserves forensic history. This is substantial context beyond structured fields.

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?

Every sentence carries operative information: state mutation, safety, required confirmation, exact file paths and naming, self-logging behavior, and usage guidance. There is no filler, and the key safety and usage constraints are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter mutation tool, this description is complete: it covers prerequisites, behavior, effect on files, safety, and when to choose alternatives. The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 a 'confirm' string with an empty default and no description. The description fully compensates by stating that confirm must equal 'YES' and that anything else is refused, making the parameter's role and validation unambiguous.

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 action (rotates active audit logs) and a specific resource, explicitly contrasting with deletion. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like sassy_audit_log and sassy_audit_search by naming what it is not meant for.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use when you want a fresh log tail while keeping history.' It also names the alternatives, sassy_audit_log and sassy_audit_search, and tells the agent to prefer them for reading. No usage ambiguity remains.

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