clear_all_clip_envelopes

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 clearly indicates a destructive action ('clear') but does not disclose additional details such as irrevocability, effect on undo history, or behavior on clips without envelopes. The action is simple, so the lack of extreme detail is acceptable, but slightly more context would improve this dimension.

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 highly concise and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the Args section presents parameter details in a clean, readable format. No filler or redundant information is present.

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 two-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states the action, explains the meaning of both parameters, and the presence of an output schema likely covers return values. It does not elaborate on edge cases, but the low complexity and schema support make this adequate.

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 schema provides only parameter names and types (0% description coverage), but the description compensates by explaining that both track_index and clip_index are zero-based indices. This adds important semantic guidance beyond the schema, helping the agent correctly construct 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 specific verb (clear) and resource (all automation envelopes in a clip), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from related tools like 'clear_clip_envelope' by explicitly targeting 'all' envelopes, which is a meaningful scoping detail.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over, for example, 'clear_clip_envelope' or other clip-editing tools. The description simply states what it does without usage context.

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