pt_clear_canvas

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a destructive operation, but the description adds two things annotations don't: the blast radius is total (every device, not a subset) and a confirm=true flag must be supplied despite the schema marking no parameters required. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what the canvas looks like afterwards.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the blast radius front-loaded and the required precondition second. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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 single-parameter destructive tool whose annotation already declares destructiveness and no output schema exists, this covers what an agent needs to invoke it safely. Minor gap: no statement of whether the wipe is recoverable or how it interacts with pt_save_configs before clearing.

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 one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the meaning, and it does: it tells the agent confirm=true is required, which is non-obvious given the schema declares confirm as optional with a default of false. It doesn't explain what confirm=false actually does (no-op, error, or prompt).

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 ("Delete") and resource ("EVERY device on the canvas"), and the emphasized "EVERY" makes the mass scope unambiguous. It does not name the sibling pt_delete_devices, but the capitalization of EVERY implicitly carves out the difference for a careful reader.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the nuclear option (wipe the whole canvas) and that confirm=true is a safety gate. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer pt_delete_devices instead, nor warns about what state is lost.

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