clear_automation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the operation is 'Undoable' (reversibility) and defaults to clearing everything. That reversibility note is exactly the kind of extra behavioral signal annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the default scope and reversibility guarantee. No filler.

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 6-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and partial annotation coverage, the definition covers the essentials: what is destroyed, whether it is reversible, and the default range. It is only slightly thin on the fx/parameter path and on prerequisites.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% with descriptions on track, target, start_bar and end_bar but none on fx and parameter. The description reinforces the range concept and its all-by-default behavior, matching start_bar/end_bar, but supplies no syntax or format detail and says nothing about the fx/parameter pairing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Removes automation points') with scope ('in a range', default all), which cleanly separates it from the read_automation/write_automation siblings. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it lands just below the top tier.

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 scope note '(default: all of them)' implies the caller can narrow the operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., must automation exist, must a selection be set), and no pointer to write_automation or read_automation as alternatives.

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