clear_picks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool 'empties' (비운다) the picked items, which signals a destructive/clearing operation. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, what exactly gets cleared (all picks vs. recent ones), or whether confirmation is needed. The core effect is conveyed, but the details are thin.

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 two short sentences: first states the action, second states when to use it. Every word contributes meaning, and the core information is front-loaded. No filler or redundant schema 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential facts: what it clears and the occasion for using it. It could be slightly more explicit in defining what '짚어 둔 것' are, but this is clarified by sibling tool names and the context of a story-starting workflow. The description is adequate, though not exhaustive.

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?

There are no parameters and the schema already fully covers them (100% coverage). With zero parameters, the description has little to add about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies; the description's contextual note about starting a new story provides some extra purpose but no parameter-specific guidance is needed.

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 a clear action: '짚어 둔 것을 비운다' ('empties what was picked/pointed out'). This clearly identifies the tool as clearing collected 'picks' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_picks, latest_pick, and wait_for_pick. However, the resource is phrased indirectly ('짚어 둔 것') rather than explicitly named 'picks,' so it relies on context.

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 an explicit usage context: '새 이야기를 시작할 때' ('when starting a new story'). This tells the agent when to use the tool but does not mention exclusions or compare it to alternatives, such as using list_picks before clearing or avoiding it mid-story.

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