piano_roll_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the destructive behavior: every note in the currently-open piano roll will be removed. It could add more context about irreversibility or undo behavior, but the core mutation is transparently stated.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately specifies the scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough: it states exactly what is removed and where. It could optionally mention whether the action is undoable or limited to the active pattern, but the key information is present.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden. The description correctly identifies the only relevant context, the currently-open piano roll, which serves as the implicit operation target.

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 clear verb ('Remove') and a specific resource ('every note in the currently-open piano roll'). It is unambiguous and easy to distinguish from many sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate against a sibling like piano_roll_delete_notes.

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 intended use is implied: use this when the currently-open piano roll should have all its notes removed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternative tools such as piano_roll_delete_notes or piano_roll_write_patterns.

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