Forget all

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the 'fresh start' context, reinforcing the irreversible nature. It does not disclose specific behavioral details like confirmation or rollback, but the destructive hint covers the main concern.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose 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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It could mention irreversibility or confirmation requirements, but the annotations already acknowledge destructiveness, making the description adequate.

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?

With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter information. The schema coverage is 100% (no params), so the baseline is appropriate. The description provides no additional semantic value for parameters, but none 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 'Clear all stored memories (fresh start)' uses a specific verb 'clear' and explicitly names the resource 'all stored memories', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'forget' (specific memory) and 'forget_matching' (filtered deletion).

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?

While the description implies a fresh start and is suitable for resetting all memories, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus 'forget' or 'forget_matching'. However, the context signals and sibling names provide implicit guidance.

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