clearAll

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds specificity by listing exactly what is cleared (layers, entities, animations, trajectories) and the return payload with removed counts. This supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

A single sentence conveying the action and return value. No filler, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the return structure is compactly noted.

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?

The tool is simple (no required params), annotations cover safety (destructive, idempotent), and the description specifies the scope and return format. The only minor gap is not mentioning any side effects like session-scoped clearing, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only parameter, sessionId, is fully described in the schema (optional, for multi-browser routing). The description does not mention parameters at all, but given 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—no additional semantic burden on the description.

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 clears all layers, entities, animations, and trajectories from the scene. The verb 'clear' and resource scope are explicit, and the return structure distinguishes it from more granular sibling tools like removeLayer and removeEntity.

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 makes the use case obvious—bulk clearing of the scene—but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like removeLayer or removeEntity. The context is clear, but no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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