clear_local_index

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

Annotations already establish destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description has a lower bar to meet. It adds genuine value by specifying what is not destroyed ('Downloaded files and the login session remain'), which helps the agent understand the blast radius beyond the raw annotation flags. It does not detail return behavior, but that is less important for a parameterless action with no output schema.

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?

Two short sentences carry the full meaning with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important safety caveat is placed second without redundancy.

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 parameterless, no-output-schema tool with strong annotations, the description provides everything needed for correct invocation: what resource is affected, what persists afterward, and by extension what the destructive scope is. There are no missing inputs or outputs to explain.

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 input schema is empty and parameterless, so there is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description need not compensate for missing schema semantics, and it doesn't need to add more.

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 specific action ('Clear') on a specific resource ('the current account's searchable local text cache'), making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous. It also adds a meaningful boundary — downloaded files and the login session remain — so the agent knows exactly what is and isn't affected.

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 intended use is implied clearly by the action and resource, and the note about what remains gives some decision context. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_index_status or start_course_sync, nor does it mention when clearing is appropriate.

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