terrain_clear

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clear' strongly implies a destructive operation, but the description does not state that clearing all terrain is irreversible, that it affects existing voxels globally, or what the consequence of an omitted region is beyond the schema's own note.

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 a single efficient sentence that covers both invocation modes without padding. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the 'specific region' variation is mentioned clearly.

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 potentially destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should warn about the global and likely irreversible nature of clearing terrain. It also does not mention any safety checks or how the operation differs from the terrain_fill siblings, leaving an agent under-informed for a destructive call.

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 the schema already documents the 'region' parameter and its optional bounding box meaning. The description adds no coordinate-system details, units, or additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a clear verb 'clear' with the resource 'terrain' and distinguishes the two main scopes: clearing everything or a specific region. It is distinguishable from sibling 'terrain_fill_block' and 'terrain_fill_ball' by the opposing action, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 the tool is for removing terrain, and the schema adds that omitting the region clears all terrain. However, it does not state when to prefer this over terrain_fill_block/ball or other alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or workflow context.

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