chrome_clear_highlight

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

The description adds a behavioral detail ('Fade out') beyond the bare action, but with no annotations, it does not disclose what happens if no highlight exists, whether any state is permanently altered, or if any confirmation is required. The fade-out is a nice touch but coverage is minimal.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the operation. Every word is purposeful, and it is front-loaded with the verb and object.

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 no-parameter, no-output tool, the description is sufficient. It doesn't explain edge cases like clearing non-existent highlights, but given the simplicity and absence of a schema, this is a minor gap. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning that it only affects overlays created by chrome_highlight.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info because there is none to add.

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 action ('Fade out and remove') and the target resource ('highlight overlay'). This distinguishes it from the sibling chrome_highlight tool, which presumably adds a highlight, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context is implied by the tool name and the existence of chrome_highlight, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites or conditions (e.g., whether a highlight must exist).

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