clear_curve

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the observable outcome, which is that the curve is returned to its default value, but it omits irreversibility, what happens if the curve does not exist yet, and whether the reset applies to a single expression or all of them. The core mutation effect is disclosed, while the edge cases and side effects are not.

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?

Two short bilingual sentences with the verb and target front-loaded and no filler. The duplication in English and Japanese is functional for locale coverage rather than wasteful, though it adds length without adding information.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too thin. It leaves the meaning of one of the two required parameters and the error/empty-curve behavior undocumented, which an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it only partially does: 'of a part' maps to the 'part' integer, but 'abbr' is never explained, so the agent has no textual cue that it selects the expression to clear. The schema titles 'Abbr' and 'Part' add nothing.

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 names a specific verb ('Reset'), a specific resource ('expression curve of a part'), and the resulting state ('to its default'), so an agent can distinguish this from get_curve/set_curve behaviorally. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling alternative, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 when-to-use is only implied by the verb: reset when you want the curve back at its default rather than editing it with set_curve. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer set_curve or get_curve, no preconditions, and no exclusions.

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