openclaw_node_pending_drain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns 'Destructive — discards queued work,' a critical behavioral trait. It also mentions the underlying API wrapper, but does not cover auth or other side effects, still adequate for a clear operation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every word is necessary; no fluff. Efficiently conveys purpose and key warning.

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 covers the essential action and destructive nature, but there is no output schema and no mention of return values or confirmation. For a clear operation, it is somewhat complete, but additional context (e.g., what happens after draining) would help.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter schema descriptions ('Node id', 'Optional OpenClaw instance...'). The tool's purpose implies the nodeId identifies the node, but no extra context is provided.

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 'Drain (clear) all pending work items for a node.' This uses a specific verb (drain/clear) and identifies the resource (pending work items for a node). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openclaw_node_pending_pull and openclaw_node_pending_enqueue, which handle pending items differently.

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 includes 'Destructive — discards queued work,' which implies when to use it (to clear pending work) and when not (if preservation is needed). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like pull or enqueue.

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