cw_job_clear

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that running jobs are preserved, which is meaningful beyond the tool name, but it does not explicitly state irreversibility, scope (all finished jobs vs. some subset), permissions, or what the caller gets back.

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?

It is two short sentences with no waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the important preservation rule without padding.

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 cleanup tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential selective-deletion behavior. It still leaves gaps around destructiveness, whether the operation is reversible, and what a caller should expect after clearing jobs.

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 are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not introduce any conflicting parameter information.

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 communicates the resource (finished background jobs) and effect (forgetting/removing them), which is enough to distinguish this from general job inspection. However, the verb 'Forget' is metaphorical and it never names a sibling such as cw_job_abandon, so sibling differentiation remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 second sentence implies the key usage boundary: finished jobs are cleared while running jobs are retained. That is useful usage context, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool call for abandoning or inspecting running jobs.

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