clear_envelope

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals destructive behavior. The description only restates that all points are deleted and adds no further behavioral context, such as irreversibility, effect on automation mode, or what envelope types are valid. It does not contradict the annotation, but it also adds no value beyond it.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the Args section is incomplete and misleading because it lists only envelope_name while ignoring the required track_index. Brevity is not beneficial when it omits critical parameter 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?

With two required parameters, a destructive hint, and no output schema, the description should explain how track_index and envelope_name identify the target envelope. It does neither. It also fails to clarify whether this applies to track envelopes or FX envelopes, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 compensate, but it only repeats envelope_name with the unhelpful phrase 'Envelope name.' It completely omits track_index, which is a required parameter. This provides no meaning beyond the raw schema and actively misleads by listing only one of the two required arguments.

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 clear action and resource: 'Delete all points from an envelope.' The verb 'Delete' and resource 'envelope' are specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish track envelopes from FX envelopes. The sibling tool clear_fx_envelope suggests clear_envelope refers to track envelopes, but the description itself relies on that inference.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_envelope_point or clear_fx_envelope. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred context. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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