draw_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While it correctly indicates the tool is destructive (clearing drawings), it does not specify the scope (e.g., current chart only) or permanence of the action. Additional context about side effects is missing.

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?

The description is a single short sentence that conveys the essential action and distinguishing detail. It is extremely concise with no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify the scope (e.g., which chart's drawings are cleared) or mention related tools like draw_remove. This could lead to ambiguity for the agent.

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 input schema already describes the 'type' parameter with 100% coverage. The description paraphrases this ('drawings of a type') without adding new semantic details beyond the schema. Hence it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 clearly states the verb 'clear' and the resource 'drawings', and distinguishes between clearing all drawings or only those of a specific type. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose, especially compared to sibling tools like draw_remove or draw_list.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as draw_remove (for removing individual drawings) or draw_shape (for adding). The description implies usage for batch clearing but does not provide context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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