clear_app_data

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive nature ('delete all app data and cannot be undone'), which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., app reset), or error handling beyond the return message.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and warning, followed by structured Arg/Return sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, the second warns of consequences, and the bullet points document parameters and returns efficiently.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the critical warning and parameter semantics. However, it lacks context on system dependencies (e.g., Android/ADB requirements) or usage scenarios, leaving gaps in completeness for safe operation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'package_name' refers to the 'Package name of the app', which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema's generic 'Package Name' title. No format examples or constraints are provided, but it adequately explains the parameter's role.

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 clearly states the verb ('clear') and resource ('application data for a package'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'stop_app', but the focus on app data is reasonably distinct.

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 description includes a warning about irreversible deletion, which implies caution, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_app' or 'delete_file'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the app to be installed or running.

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