openclaw_doctor_memory_resetDreamDiary

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 clearly states that the tool is destructive, wipes the entire diary, and loses all promoted-into-memory candidates. It also mentions the underlying function it wraps, providing transparency about the implementation.

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 concise, consisting of three short sentences that each add value: purpose, underlying function, and warnings. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids extraneous information.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and consequences, but does not explain the return value (e.g., confirmation message) despite the lack of an output schema. Given the low complexity and the inclusion of critical warnings, it is mostly complete.

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 description does not mention the only parameter 'instance', but the input schema already provides a detailed description for it (100% coverage). Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description adds no additional semantics, warranting a baseline score of 3.

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 the action ('wipe the dream diary entirely') and specifies the resource ('dream diary'). It differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing it resets the entire diary and is destructive, which sets it apart from other memory-related tools like status or backfill.

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 explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and requires confirmation before calling, and notes the loss of promoted-into-memory candidates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives to similar tools, leaving some guidance to the agent.

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