design_clear_mask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the primary effect ('restoring full unmasked rendering'), but does not disclose whether the mask is deleted or merely hidden, whether the operation can be undone, or any permission or error conditions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action and result efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter layer operation the description covers the core action, and the schema covers the required parameter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to clarify reversibility and side effects for this mutation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single layerId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline when schema coverage is high.

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: removing the mask from a design layer. The phrasing also distinguishes it from the sibling design_set_mask by describing the inverse operation and the resulting unmasked rendering.

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 purpose implies when to use it, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of design_set_mask or what happens if the layer has no mask. For a simple tool this is adequate, but it leaves the routing implicit.

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