clear_marked_frames

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the removal runs inside an undo transaction, the save must succeed for the call to count as success, and the no-marks case returns already_empty=true with saved=false and nothing written.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the transaction/save contract, then the empty case and return shape. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

Although no output schema exists, the description inlines the full return shape including the optional save_error, and it covers the edge case (empty sequence) and the transactional/save semantics. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret results.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents sequence_name fully. The description adds no format, path, or resolution detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Removes ALL user marked frames from a Level Sequence's movie scene') with a scope qualifier in caps that distinguishes it from the singular sibling remove_marked_frame. An agent can tell this is the bulk-removal operation without opening the schema.

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 implies when this is appropriate ('Removes ALL user marked frames' vs. a single frame), which points toward bulk cleanup, but it never names the alternative remove_marked_frame or states explicitly when to prefer one over the other. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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