godot_clear_debug_shapes

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

The description clarifies that only 'active runtime' drawing shapes are removed, which adds scope beyond the annotations. However, it does not explain whether this affects generated visuals only, whether the action is reversible, or whether it removes only shapes created by the companion draw tool.

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 with no wasted words. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the qualifiers 'active' and 'runtime' add necessary precision without bloat.

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?

The description is sufficient for a very simple clear operation, and the presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. Still, it omits useful operational context such as the effect of filtering by category, whether the action is undoable, and how this relates to the debug-drawing lifecycle.

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 description does not mention the 'category' filter, leaving the schema to carry that meaning. The schema does provide a useful description and examples for the parameter, so the agent can still understand the input; the prose just does not add extra semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the exact resource ('active runtime debug drawing shapes'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling godot_draw_debug_shapes, but it does not explicitly contrast it with related debug-related tools such as godot_set_physics_debug_mode.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives might be more appropriate. There is no mention that it pairs with godot_draw_debug_shapes or that it is meant for cleanup after debug visualization sessions.

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