clear_fx_envelope

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what gets destroyed ('all automation points') and disclosing the return value ('Object with deleted_count'). This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the operation and scope, and the second documents the return value. There is no filler or unnecessary duplication.

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 three-parameter destructive operation, the description covers the core action and return shape. However, it omits parameter semantics and usage context, which are important given the lack of schema descriptions and the absence of an output schema. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 needed to compensate, but it does not explain track_index, fx_index, or param_index. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no detail about indexing conventions, which envelope is targeted, or how the parameters relate to the described operation.

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 a specific verb ('Clear'), a specific resource ('all automation points from an FX parameter envelope'), and the scope of the operation. It is easily distinguished from the sibling tool 'clear_envelope' by explicitly targeting the FX parameter envelope rather than a generic envelope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related alternatives like 'clear_envelope' or 'delete_fx_envelope_point'. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this operation, so the agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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