design_clear_figure_guides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact — this removes ALL matching layers in one shot — which signals a bulk destructive mutation. It does not state whether the removal is undoable, whether locked/hidden figure layers are included, or what happens if no figure layers exist.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the affected resource. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less tool, the description covers the essential what. It remains thin on outcome: no indication of whether the call returns a count, errors when nothing matches, or is recoverable, which matters for an irreversible-looking bulk deletion.

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 to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the operation is unscoped (no filters or selection).

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?

Specific verb + resource: 'Remove all figure:* layers from the layer stack' tells the agent exactly what is deleted. It names the target layer prefix, which differentiates it from the numerous sibling clear_* tools (design_clear_guides, design_clear_construction_guides, design_clear_composition_guides), though the 'figure:*' glob notation assumes familiarity with the layer naming convention.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name — an agent can infer it should call this to wipe figure-related guides. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over design_clear_pose_layers, design_clear_guides, or design_clear_construction_guides, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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