design_clear_composition_guides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Remove all' and scopes the removal to the layer stack, which conveys destructive action, but it does not mention irreversibility, whether locked or hidden guide layers are affected, whether confirmation is needed, or what the operation returns.

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 redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to identifying the action and target.

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 clear tool the description is minimally sufficient: it names the action and target scope. However, because this is a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally disclose irreversibility or side effects; those omissions leave a meaningful behavioral gap.

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, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful differentiator. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('all composition guide layers') with scope ('from the layer stack'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as design_clear_guides, design_clear_construction_guides, or design_clear_figure_guides, but the resource specificity is still sufficient to identify what is targeted.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like design_clear_guides, design_toggle_guides, or the other clear_* guide tools. The action is implied by the verb, but there is no explicit when/when-not or prerequisite information.

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