sw_clear_appearance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the scope is document-level only (not face/feature appearance) and that the revert target is the material colour, but it omits whether the removal is undoable, whether it requires an open/modified document, and what is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the resulting state appended. Every clause earns its place and there is 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 one-optional-parameter, non-destructive toggle with annotations present and no output schema, this is close to sufficient. The remaining gaps are edge cases: behavior when no document-level appearance exists, and whether the change is undoable.

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 single optional 'doc' parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including the default-to-active-document behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about path formats or title resolution, 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?

Specific verb ('Remove') plus a precise resource ('document-level appearance') and the observable effect ('material colour shows again'). It clearly contrasts with set-style operations, though it never names sw_set_appearance as the counterpart, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 stated outcome ('so the material colour shows again') implies the situation in which an agent should reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus sw_set_appearance, no precondition that an appearance must exist, and no statement of what happens if none is set.

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