canvas_clear

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the blast radius ("all layers and objects", not a selection), which is the key piece of context for a clear-all operation, but it says nothing about reversibility, confirmation, or whether the canvas background/settings survive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier ("all") appears before the resource. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter but destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to state reversibility and any save-first expectation. It covers what is deleted but omits exactly the safety context an agent needs before invoking it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing or implying any 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?

States a specific verb (clears) and resource (all layers and objects on the canvas), so an agent immediately knows it is a destructive canvas-wide reset rather than a layer-level operation like layer_delete. It does not, however, contrast itself with related tools such as layer_delete or canvas_create_new, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus layer_delete (targeted removal) or canvas_create_new (fresh canvas), nor any warning precondition such as saving the project first. The availability of history_undo as a sibling makes an undo/reversibility note conspicuously absent.

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