armorpaint_clear_layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates and destroys content. The description adds modest context by noting the operation also writes 'packed PBR values', implying metallic/occlusion/roughness are set simultaneously. No annotation contradiction exists. The description doesn't go further (e.g., indicating irreversibility beyond the destructive hint, or whether clearing affects only the target layer).

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence fully states the operation; the second reinforces the color range, which is useful even though the schema also encodes 0–1 constraints. No wasted words, appropriate size for the tool's simplicity.

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 5-parameter operation with 0% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the description is minimal but adequate at a high level. The output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The main gaps are the missing layer_id semantics and the lack of any statement about the relationship to fill_layer or undo behavior, which an agent would benefit from before invoking a destructive op.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining the color array is RGBA in the 0–1 range and framing metallic/occlusion/roughness as 'packed PBR values' set together. However, the required layer_id parameter gets zero semantic help — its -1 minimum is unexplained (likely meaning active/current layer but unstated) — so the description only partially fills the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Replace'), a clear resource ('a paint layer's pixels'), and the values involved (uniform color and packed PBR values). This is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the closely named sibling armorpaint_fill_layer, which sounds functionally similar, so the agent gets no help choosing between them based on purpose alone.

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 description gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 40 siblings including armorpaint_fill_layer, armorpaint_set_layer_channels, and armorpaint_export_layer, there is no guidance on when clearing is appropriate, whether it requires an existing/selected layer, or how it relates to fill operations. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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