Take out all output (clear the app)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it uses POST /command with the action 'TakeOutAllOutput', animates overlays to Out state, and returns a success object. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a brief line for arguments and return value. Every sentence contributes essential information, with the purpose front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, action, HTTP method, and return format. Minor missing details (e.g., error handling) do not significantly impact usability for this clear-all 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description briefly lists parameters ('app/appToken; response_format') but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. It does not compensate for any gaps since there are none.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Animate every overlay in the control app to its Out state' and uses explicit terms like 'clear the screen', 'segment-end', and 'panic control'. It specifies the exact action and differentiates from siblings like singular_animate_state by focusing on clearing all output.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('clear the screen / segment-end / panic control') and mentions it is the only documented command action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, which would strengthen guidance.

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