design_clear_pose_layers

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 important trait that removal is bulk and prefix-scoped ('all poses:* layers'), which is real value. However it says nothing about reversibility/undo, whether it operates on the active sketch or the whole document, or what happens when no matching layers exist — material gaps for a destructive zero-param call.

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 zero filler; the scope qualifier ('all poses:* layers') arrives before any elaboration is needed. 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 simple zero-param operation this covers the core action, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should still state the target document/selection scope and whether the deletion is recoverable. Those omissions matter for a destructive tool in a large layer-manipulation family.

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 the schema is empty and complete by definition; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the operation as applying to all matching layers.

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 concrete verb ('Remove') and a precisely scoped resource ('all poses:* layers from the layer stack'), so an agent knows exactly what gets deleted. It is distinguishable from sibling clear_* tools (design_clear_mask, design_clear_guides, design_clear_keyframes) by the 'poses:' layer prefix, though it never explains what that prefix convention means.

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 call this versus leaving the layers alone, no prerequisite or ordering guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as design_remove_layer for targeted removal. The agent must infer that this is a bulk cleanup step after pose work.

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