clear_diagnostic_information

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key trait — the operation destroys diagnostic trouble codes and needs user confirmation. It stops short of saying whether the clear is irreversible, which ECUs/session state is required, or what happens to stored freeze-frame data, so a mutation tool remains only partially characterized.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the service identity and followed by the safety directive; nothing is padded. Slightly terser than ideal for a destructive operation, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the destructive nature is flagged. However, for a diagnostic write action with a fully undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing on group encoding and on preconditions such as session/security access.

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%, and the description only explains the magic default value 'FFFFFF = all'. It adds real meaning for that one value but never explains the accepted DTC-group encoding (e.g., three-byte groupOfDTC format) or what a non-default group string should look like.

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?

Names the exact UDS service (0x14 ClearDiagnosticInformation) and the resource it acts on (a DTC group), so an agent knows precisely what the call does. It is distinguishable from read_dtc_information by implication, but the description never states that contrast explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete, actionable precondition: 'Confirm with the user before clearing,' which tells the agent this is a destructive action requiring human sign-off. It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., read_dtc_information first to inspect) or state when clearing is appropriate versus unnecessary.

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