Clear the conversation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds context those fields cannot: exactly what is destroyed (the conversation messages) versus what is preserved (canvas, blocks, other chats), plus the fact that the action is reversible ('It can be undone, which puts the messages back'). It does not describe confirmation behavior or any permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the destructive scope front-loaded before the usage condition. The scope clause ('its messages go and the canvas, its blocks and the other chats stay') reads slightly tangled, which costs a little clarity but not length.

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 zero-parameter, no-output tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, the description closes every remaining gap: what is removed, what survives, when to invoke it, and that it is reversible. An agent has everything needed to call it confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema is complete by construction. Baseline of 4 applies; nothing in the description adds or detracts.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (clear this conversation, starting it afresh) and immediately delineates scope: messages go, while the canvas, blocks, and other chats stay. That scope statement is what separates it from the sibling clear_canvas, so an agent can choose correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: use only when the person asks to start over or clear the chat. That is real when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it beyond the trigger condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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