draw_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a destructive action ('Remove all') but does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, whether confirmation is needed, or what side effects occur. Given the mutation-like nature of this tool, more behavioral context is needed.

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. It fully communicates the action and target in minimal words, earning a top conciseness score.

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 zero-parameter, zero-output tool, the description is largely sufficient: it names the action and scope clearly. However, it omits any note about irreversibility or the state of the chart afterward, which would help an agent assess consequences.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema already reflects that with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 clear verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('all drawings'), and a scope ('from the chart'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling draw_remove_one by emphasizing that it clears everything rather than a single drawing.

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 phrase 'all drawings' implies this is for clearing the entire chart rather than removing specific items, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.

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