clear_cel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that content is erased but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the cel itself is deleted, whether it is permanent, or how it interacts with frame/layer properties). This is a significant gap for a destructive mutation tool.

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, easy to parse and front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, lacking any additional context or structure. It earns the middle score due to brevity without completeness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is insufficient. The agent lacks context about what a 'cel' is, which frame/layer to specify, and what consequences clearing has, making the tool incomplete in context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the 'frame' or 'layer' parameters at all. The agent gets no explanation of how these identify the cel, leaving the parameters semantically opaque despite their self-explanatory names.

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 identifies the action (clear/erase) and the resource (cel), giving a specific verb+resource pair. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like move_cel or set_cel_opacity, but the operation is unique enough to be understood.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites like valid frame/layer values or whether the cel must exist. The description only states the action, leaving usage context entirely to the agent's inference.

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