instrumentation_group_clear

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds 'with leak detection,' providing a behavioral trait beyond annotations. However, it does not explain what leak detection entails or other behaviors like error handling.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It wastes no words but lacks details expected for a destructive tool. It is efficient but could be more informative.

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?

Given the tool is destructive with a single parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical context: what happens on success/error, leak detection specifics, reversibility, and prerequisites. It is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 0%, and the description only generically references 'named' without elaborating on the 'name' parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain it. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Remove a named instrumentation group with leak detection,' clearly indicating the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'instrumentation_group_create' and 'instrumentation_group_inspect.' However, it could be more explicit that the group is identified by the 'name' parameter.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to remove vs create or inspect). There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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