clear_ocio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosure. It states the basic action (remove nodes, restore default) but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or behavior for different targets beyond the list. This is insufficient for a destructive mutation tool.

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 very concise: a single line for the main action followed by a structured Args section. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the behavioral transparency gaps and lack of usage guidance make it only minimally adequate for a simple but destructive tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the parameter. However, the description provides the valid values for 'target' (linearize, display, look, all), which adds meaning. Yet it does not explain what each value does, so the contribution is partial.

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?

Description clearly states the tool removes OCIO nodes and restores default RV pipeline, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like clear_cdl or clear_lut that deal with different color management elements.

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 lists valid target values but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the tool name and sibling names, but no explicit guidance is given.

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