clear_target_frames

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states the verb and object. It does not say whether this removes all targets or just the active one, whether the operation is reversible, or what side effects occur on subsequent frame operations.

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 no filler, which is appropriately sized for a simple clear operation, though its extreme terseness borders on under-specification.

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 0-param, no-output-schema tool this is minimally viable, but with no annotations it leaves unanswered what state results after clearing (e.g., does it fall back to a default frame or to none) and when this should be called relative to set_target_frame.

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 and describes the cleared state, which is the complete input surface. Baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and nothing here undermines that.

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 pairs a clear verb ('Clears') with a specific resource ('target frameIds'), so the agent knows it manipulates the target-frame selection. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the related siblings set_target_frame and get_target_frames beyond the verb.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (set_target_frame to add, get_target_frames to inspect). The agent must infer the workflow from the sibling names alone.

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