drawing_clear

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses an optimistic-concurrency guard ('refuses if the live set has changed') and that only the supplied IDs are touched. It stops short of saying whether the removal is atomic across the whole set or what error surfaces on refusal.

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 waste, with the scope restriction and the refusal behavior front-loaded. 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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the definition covers scope and the concurrency guard but omits recovery guidance (re-run drawing_list after a refusal) and how an agent should obtain expected_layout_id. Adequate but leaves a real operational gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%: target_id and expected_layout_id are self-documented, while expected_ids has no top-level description. The description compensates by stating the array must be the COMPLETE set (not a subset), which is semantics the schema does not convey, and explains that a layout mismatch blocks the write.

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?

Names a specific verb (remove) and resource (the supplied set of drawing IDs), and adds the distinguishing constraint that the set must be complete. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling drawing_remove, and the tool name ('clear') suggests clearing everything while the description says only the supplied IDs — an agent must reconcile that on its own.

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?

'after inspection' implies a precondition (inspect via drawing_list first) but never states it explicitly, and there is no guidance on when to pick this over drawing_remove or drawing_update. Usage is inferable from the intent of the tool but not spelled out.

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