design_clear_guides

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It discloses what is removed (guide layers) and that the scope is the entire stack, but says nothing about whether the removal is undoable, what happens to guides inside groups or nested layers, or what the result is when no guides 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 sentence that puts the destructive verb and the affected resource first with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is the minimum viable definition. For a destructive bulk operation, though, an agent would benefit from knowing about undo/reversibility and the relationship to the category-specific clear tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The only thing worth noting is that the description correctly signals the operation needs no targeting input, consistent with a bulk clear.

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 and resource ("Remove all guide layers") with the scope word "all" narrowing it against the type-specific siblings like design_clear_construction_guides and design_clear_figure_guides. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or distinguishing itself from design_toggle_guides, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this versus design_toggle_guides (hide) or the category-specific clears. The word "all" implies the broad-scope case, but the agent is left to infer that guides disappear permanently rather than being hidden or cleared selectively.

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