draw_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does state 'STATE_MUTATING' and 'Irreversible removal of canvas drawings.' It does not cover permission requirements or behavior on an empty canvas, but the critical destructive and irreversible characteristics are clearly disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and then uses labeled sections for WHEN TO USE, SIDE EFFECTS, and LIMITATIONS. Each sentence adds value and the total length is appropriate for a destructive zero-parameter tool.

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 simple, parameterless, destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, side effects, and irreversibility. An agent has all the information needed to invoke it safely and 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 takes no parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter detail, as there is nothing to describe.

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 and resource: 'Remove all user drawing shapes and annotations from the active chart canvas.' The word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling draw_remove_one, making the scope unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

It provides a clear WHEN TO USE clause: 'Call when resetting or cleaning the chart canvas before drawing a fresh analysis template.' However, it does not name an alternative such as draw_remove_one for single-shape removal, so the when-not guidance is absent.

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