map_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses what gets destroyed (nodes, connections, stickies) and the scope. However, it does not mention irreversibility, potential data loss beyond those types, or whether notes are affected, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the 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 simple destructive tool with one well-documented parameter, the description and schema together cover the essentials. It could be improved by stating that the action is irreversible or listing excluded elements (e.g., notes), but it is sufficiently complete for a clear operation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the confirm parameter is clearly documented as required for destructive action. The description adds no further parameter context, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Remove all') and clearly identifies the resources (nodes, connections, stickies) and scope ('from the current sheet'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like map_delete_node, which target individual items.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to clear the entire current sheet's content. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., using individual delete tools) or when not to use it, so guidance is only implicit.

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