clear_automation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the higher-destruction case: omitting `parameter` wipes every envelope, and it clarifies the Session vs arrangement clip scope. It stops short of mentioning undo or irreversible-state caveats.

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 tight sentences followed by a concrete example; the primary removal semantics are front-loaded and nothing is padded. The example earns its place by disambiguating argument types.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope and the clear-all behavior adequately but leaves the addressing model (how track, device, slot, and arrangement_clip combine to locate the target clip) largely unexplained. An agent would still have to guess at target resolution.

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 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and mostly fails it. The example conveys that `track` takes a name like 'Pad', that `parameter` is a string like 'volume', and that `slot` addresses the clip, but `device` and `arrangement_clip` are never explained, nor is the track/device/parameter addressing hierarchy.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a clip's envelope for one parameter, or every envelope,' which is the clear inverse of the sibling write_automation. It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast itself against the automation siblings.

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?

Provides one conditional usage rule (omitting `parameter` clears every envelope) and a scope note that it works on Session and arrangement clips. It does not say when to reach for this versus write_automation/get_automation, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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