clear_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Clear' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify what 'clear' means (e.g., remove content, reset to default, hide), whether it requires permissions, if it's reversible, or what happens after clearing. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 destructive operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'clear' entails behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, or how it differs from sibling clearing tools. Given the complexity of layer management implied by sibling tools, more context is needed.

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%, with the parameter 'layer' fully documented in the schema including its enum values. The description lists the same seven layer types, adding no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the action ('Clear') and the resource ('a specific layer'), listing the seven possible layer types. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'messages_clear' or 'props_clear' that might handle similar operations for specific layers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'messages_clear', 'props_clear', and various 'clear_get' tools, there's no indication of when this general layer-clearing tool is preferred over more specific ones or what context triggers its use.

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