tilemap_clear

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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that omitting the layer clears every layer, which is a critical destructive side effect. The legacy TileMap distinction also adds useful context. It doesn't mention reversibility or errors, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and the conditional behavior of the layer parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics well. It lacks explicit error handling or return value details, but these are not critical for understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 schema provides only names and types with zero description coverage. The description adds crucial meaning to the layer parameter by explaining its role (specific layer vs all layers). The node_path parameter is implicitly the target node, which is reasonably inferable. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Clear') and the resource ('TileMapLayer' or legacy 'TileMap'), and distinguishes behavior based on the layer parameter. This makes it easy to understand what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like tilemap_set_cell or tilemap_get_cell.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: specify a layer to clear that layer, or omit it to clear all layers. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state exclusions, the conditional usage is well explained, which is sufficient for this straightforward tool.

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