Remove ALL Drawing objects (wipe the overlay)

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/readOnlyHint/idempotentHint) by disclosing the pcall-guarding so a bad handle won't abort the wipe, the exact error payload when Drawing is unavailable, the return shape ({cleared, failed, drawingClearCalled}), and the active-client plus explicit-mutation-approval prerequisites. This is rich operational context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 core behavior is front-loaded and dense but mostly earns its place, covering mechanism, guards, and return values. The trailing metadata block (Phase/cost/Requires/Produces/Verify/Safety) and the closing 'inspect tool-schema for exact fields' line are somewhat boilerplate, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies return values in both success and failure cases, the executor prerequisite, and the mutation approval requirement. For a destructive overlay-wipe tool whose safety profile is already in annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and both optional parameters (threadContext, timeoutMs) are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'Signature: { threadContext, timeoutMs }' adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb and resource ('Tears down the entire MCP-managed Drawing overlay') and details the exact mechanism (iterating __mcp_drawings handles, calling :Remove(), emptying the registry, optional Drawing.clear()). This clearly distinguishes it from the single-object sibling draw-remove and the read-only list-drawings.

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?

Gives explicit context: 'Use it as a one-shot reset between ESP sessions,' and names list-drawings as the verification step. It does not explicitly name draw-remove as the alternative for removing individual objects, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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