clear_fx_envelope

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a destructive bulk-clearing operation and documents the return field deleted_count, but it does not explain reversibility, undo behavior, permissions, or any constraints such as whether playback must be stopped.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and closes with the return value. Every sentence adds useful information without waste.

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, low-complexity operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and return value. However, it leaves parameter semantics and behavioral safety details undocumented, so it is only minimally complete for reliable 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%, so the description must explain the three integer parameters. It implies that track_index, fx_index, and param_index identify an FX parameter envelope, but it does not define any parameter individually, their indexing scheme, or their valid ranges.

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: clearing all automation points from an FX parameter envelope. It is clearly an FX-envelope operation, which separates it from generic envelope tools, but it does not explicitly name the sibling alternative such as clear_envelope or delete_fx_envelope_point.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer that this is used to wipe an FX parameter envelope, but nothing tells it when to choose this over delete_fx_envelope_point or clear_envelope.

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