clear

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description earns credit for disclosing the exact blast radius beyond the annotations: not just elements but also app state and files. It stops short of saying whether an 'undo' can restore the cleared scene.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive scope made explicit from the first word. No filler, no repetition of the tool name or annotations.

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 zero params, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to state scope — which it does fully. The one remaining gap is recoverability (whether 'undo' restores a cleared scene), which an agent calling a destructive tool would want to know.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly conveys that the operation is unscoped and unparameterized.

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 ("Remove") and a precise scope ("all elements, app state and files") on the scene resource. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling 'delete' by emphasizing 'all', but never names or explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'all' signals a full reset rather than a targeted removal, which is enough to infer when to prefer it over 'delete'. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites such as saving or undo availability.

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