clear_task_instances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It doesn't clarify if 'clear' is destructive (e.g., deletes data), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it interacts with other operations. The term 'clear' is ambiguous without context on what happens to the cleared 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?

The description is extremely concise with a single, straightforward sentence. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded, though this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than clarity. Every word earns its place, but the place is minimal.

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's complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose beyond the name, provide usage context, disclose behavior, or clarify parameters. This leaves the agent unable to effectively select or invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning all 12 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'dag_id', 'task_ids', date ranges, boolean flags (e.g., 'include_subdags'), or 'dry_run' do. This leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of inputs.

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 a set of task instances' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'clear' and resource 'task instances', but lacks detail on what 'clear' means operationally (e.g., delete, reset, mark as cleared) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'clear_dag_run' or 'set_task_instances_state'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone. This is particularly problematic given multiple sibling tools that might handle similar operations on tasks or DAGs.

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