Removes all perspective guide layers from the layer stack in one call, clearing construction lines so you can return to a clean canvas or reset your guides.
Remove all perspective:* layers from the layer stack.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the destructive scope ('all' layers matching a prefix), but says nothing about whether the removal is reversible/undoable, whether it affects only the active sketch, or what happens when no matching 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 short sentence with zero filler, front-loaded with the action and the exact target scope. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 destructive, unannotated, batch-clearing operation with no output schema, the description covers what is deleted but not the safety or side-effect profile. An agent needs to know that everything matching perspective:* goes at once and whether it can be undone; that gap keeps this at minimum-viable.
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 disambiguate; the schema is empty and fully described. The implicit target (the current layer stack) is stated, which is the only semantic needed.
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 perspective:* layers'), which is more precise than the tool name alone. The 'perspective:*' prefix qualifier distinguishes it from generic siblings like design_clear_guides and design_clear_construction_guides, though the description never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 layer-name filter ('perspective:*'), so an agent can infer this is for wiping perspective grids. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointers to adjacent clearance tools (design_clear_guides, design_clear_composition_guides), leaving the agent to disambiguate on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.