clear_terrain

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'remove', which implies destructiveness, but it does not disclose whether the operation is undoable, whether it affects objects on the terrain, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a 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 that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient for basic usage. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., destructiveness, reversibility) and no mention of alternatives leaves some gaps, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (center and size) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 (remove) terrain in a region' uses a specific verb ('clear' with 'remove' clarifying), identifies the resource (terrain), and scopes the action (in a region). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fill_terrain (opposite action) and delete_object (objects rather than terrain).

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?

The description implies usage by clearly stating the action, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fill_terrain or delete_object). No exclusions or conditions are provided, so an agent must infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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