draw_clear

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive, irreversible via this API, and removes all drawings regardless of origin. It also clarifies that the scope is the active pane, not the whole chart, preventing a dangerous misinterpretation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, immediately followed by scope clarification, then destructive warnings and the pointer to the safer alternative. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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?

The description is fully self-contained for a mutation tool with no output schema: it covers what happens, the target scope, side effects, usage caveats (multi-pane), and how to achieve a more targeted outcome. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 are no parameters in the schema, so the description adds critical meaning by clarifying the implicit target (active pane) and that no other input is needed. This goes beyond the empty schema and fully explains the tool's input expectations.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Remove ALL drawings') and scopes it precisely to the ACTIVE PANE, distinguishing it from the whole chart. It also contrasts with draw_remove_one, so an agent can immediately tell which tool fits the intent.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use (clear everything on the active pane), when not to (single drawing removal via draw_remove_one), and how to set the target pane using pane_list and pane_focus. This is textbook usage guidance with named alternatives.

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