emulate_clear_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (clearing overrides and resetting to defaults), which is transparent about the main effect. However, it does not disclose any side effects, reversibility, or what happens if no overrides are active, leaving some gaps for a tool that performs a global reset.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the action and outcome, making it easy for an agent to parse and act upon.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It states exactly what the tool does and what resets to defaults. No additional context is necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description compensates by clearly explaining the tool's action, which gives context that the schema cannot. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description fully covers the intended semantics.

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 specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('all emulation overrides'), and specifies the result ('reset to defaults'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like emulate_device or emulate_geolocation, which set individual overrides, whereas this one resets everything.

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 usage is implicitly clear: use this when you want to remove all emulation overrides at once, as opposed to setting them individually with sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide a 'when not to use' statement, so it falls short of a 5.

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