clear_time_selection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: false, indicating this is non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral detail beyond the obvious action of clearing a UI selection, which is implied. Since the annotation covers safety, the description's minimal disclosure is acceptable but does not go beyond 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 a single, concise sentence that communicates exactly what is needed without excess. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately clear and efficient.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple state-changing action, the description is complete. It fully specifies what the tool does, and the existence of sibling tools like set_time_selection provides necessary context. There is nothing an agent needs to call this correctly that is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameters to explain, and the description correctly omits any parameter-related information, as none exist. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), so nothing is missing.

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 'Clear the time selection.' uses a specific verb ('clear') directly on a well-defined resource ('time selection'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'set_time_selection' and 'get_time_selection' by indicating a removal action rather than a set or retrieval.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided, the action itself is straightforward and self-explanatory within the context of REAPER's time selection operations. The sibling list includes set_time_selection, implying that clear is for removing an existing selection, which is contextually clear even though not explicitly stated.

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