clear_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive scope ('all locally stored fills') and the confirmation guard, but says nothing about irreversibility, whether the operation can be undone, or any auth requirement.

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 short sentences, destructive scope front-loaded, no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted and the guard condition. The main remaining gap is the irreversibility/recovery behavior, which an agent might reasonably want before calling a delete-all tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema only shows `confirm` with a default, so the description meaningfully adds the semantic requirement that confirm must be true to proceed. It doesn't clarify what happens if confirm is false, but there is only one parameter.

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?

Specific verb (delete) and resource (locally stored fills) with a clear scope qualifier ('all locally stored'). An agent can distinguish it from list_trades or import_fills, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It states the precondition 'Requires confirm=true', which is genuine usage guidance, but gives no when-to-use framing (e.g., before re-importing fills) or warning about when not to use it.

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