clear_collection_params

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by spelling out the full return payload, including scalar/vector counts before and after plus cleared and saved flags, which gives real insight into the effect of the operation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the return contract. No filler text, though the inline return-object list is somewhat dense yet still earns its place given there is no output schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape and the saved/cleared flags, and its annotations cover idempotency and destruction. It does not state behavior when the collection path is invalid or missing, which is the main remaining gap.

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 100%, so both parameters (param_type and collection_path) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'of a given type' without adding format or syntax detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (clear), resource (Material Parameter Collection parameters), and scope (of a given type), which is more precise than a bare 'clear'. It does not name or differentiate from siblings like remove_collection_param or clear_material_parameter_overrides, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus remove_collection_param (single param removal) or the other clear_* overrides siblings. Usage is only implied by the name and the 'given type' phrasing, with no exclusions or prerequisites offered.

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