design_clear_construction_guides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructive bulk nature ('Remove all') and the target (the layer stack), but says nothing about reversibility/undo, what happens when no matching layers exist, or what 'construction:*' naming actually matches.

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 short sentence with no waste, leading with the action and scope. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but not fully adequate: it omits the matching convention for 'construction:*' layers, whether other layers are untouched, and what the result/return is.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the implicit targeting rule. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter 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?

States a specific verb (remove) and a precisely scoped resource (all construction:* layers in the layer stack). It is clear what happens, but it does not distinguish itself from the many nearby clear-* siblings such as design_clear_guides, design_clear_figure_guides, or design_clear_composition_guides, nor does it reconcile 'construction guides' (the name) with 'construction:* layers' (the description).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus design_clear_guides, design_clear_figure_guides, or design_remove_layer, and no preconditions given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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