airflow-clear-task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool clears and re-runs tasks and supports upstream/downstream inclusion. However, it omits details about destructive nature, idempotency, or what state changes occur (e.g., resetting task instances).

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?

Very concise single-sentence description that front-loads the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured but leaves no ambiguity.

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?

Adequate for a moderate-complexity tool with no output schema. Covers basic purpose and optional booleans, but lacks details on return value, error conditions, or broader context (e.g., what 'clearing' entails in Airflow).

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 low (20%), and the description adds meaning to includeUpstream/includeDownstream by naming them and linking to 'supports'. It implies dagId and dagRunId identify the run, but does not elaborate on their format or constraints. The taskIds param is already described in schema.

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?

Clearly states it clears specific task instances in an Airflow DAG run for re-running, and distinguishes from the sibling 'airflow-trigger-dag' which triggers a full DAG run. Mentions key features like include_upstream/downstream.

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?

Mentions write-gating via AIRFLOW_ALLOW_WRITE, indicating a precondition. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. triggering a full DAG run) or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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