clear_rect

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that the tool erases transparently and restricts to the design layer, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing pixels are lost irreversibly, how the 'scale' parameter affects bounding box interpretation, or interactions with layers. The description adds layer-scoping detail but leaves behavioral gaps.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key constraint (design layer only, never body). There is no redundancy or filler. It earns its place by clearly communicating the most important behavioral constraint in minimal words.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is not sufficiently complete. It lacks any explanation of return values despite an output schema existing, does not explain parameters, and does not mention edge cases like out-of-bounds rectangles or the role of 'scale'. The description covers the core purpose but leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'rectangle'. With 9 parameters, including optional ones like 'plan_id' and 'output_dir' that are not self-explanatory, the description fails to guide the agent on what each parameter means. It does not compensate for the schema's lack of comments, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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 (erase) and target (a rectangle on the design layer only, never body). It distinguishes from similar drawing tools like fill_rect and stroke_rect by specifying transparency and layer restriction. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools that might be alternatives for erasing on other 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 implies usage for erasing on the design layer but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as clear_outfit_slot for clearing entire slots, nor does it state conditions that should lead to choosing another tool. The layer restriction ('never body') gives some context but not enough routing.

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