clear_all_routes

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It clearly states that the operation affects every card and destroys all routes, making the destructive and broad nature transparent. It could add an explicit irreversibility warning, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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 global destructive tool, the description names the complete scope and both effects in a single sentence. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be covered. It stops short of adding explicit caution or operational context, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 defines only a required 'token' string with no description, and the description does not discuss parameters. However, with a single self-explanatory authentication token, the lack of parameter explanation is not a practical obstacle for the agent.

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 ('Open'), states the full scope ('every crosspoint on every card'), and adds a second clear effect ('forget all routes'). This distinguishes it from siblings like set_crosspoint or unroute_signal, which target individual elements.

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 wording 'every card' and 'all routes' implies a global reset, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus individual operations like unroute_signal or set_crosspoint. Some guidance is inferable from the global scope, so it is not completely absent.

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