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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description goes further by disclosing exactly what is destroyed — both the section's worn background and the override that survives a style recompute — and that orphan entries are unreachable by any page tool. It does not discuss error behavior or permissions, but the added destruction semantics are substantive.

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 primary action and both modes are front-loaded, and most sentences carry real content. The narrative aside about deletes 'taking their own state with them' is slightly chatty, but overall the length is justified for a tool with two distinct behaviours.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers both modes, the origin of `sectionKey`, and the derived swatch-strip behaviour that follows removal. It omits edge cases such as an invalid sectionKey, whether both parameters can be supplied together, and permission requirements for a destructive 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?

Schema coverage is 67% and the description compensates by explaining what `orphans: true` actually clears (background, overlay and padding, beyond the schema's terse 'every entry'), and by identifying `sectionKey` as a value returned by uichemy_list_section_backgrounds. The two modes are implicitly presented as alternatives, though the description never states whether they can be combined.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource in two modes: unpaint a section's background, or clear backgrounds orphaned by deleted sections. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like uichemy_set_section_background and uichemy_remove_swatch, which do different things.

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?

It gives explicit conditions for each mode: pass `sectionKey` to unpaint one section, or `orphans: true` to drop every orphaned entry. It also routes the agent to uichemy_list_section_backgrounds for keys and uichemy_validate for discovering orphan-section-key entries, so the when and the source of inputs are both covered.

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