sound_selection_history_reset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds clarity by stating that project state is unchanged, which is important given the destructive annotation. It also specifies removal of 'bounded local selection history,' providing context beyond the annotations.

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 that front-loads the action and explicitly states the non-destructive nature to project state. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the parameter is well-defined, the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly. It clearly states the effect and the requirement for confirmation. Minor gap: it does not mention what happens to the history after removal, but that is not critical.

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 description coverage is 100% and the parameter 'confirm' is already well described. The description does not add additional detail about the parameter, but the schema is sufficient, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Explicitly remove bounded local selection history; project state is unchanged.' states a specific action (remove local selection history) and clarifies it does not affect project state, distinguishing it from potentially destructive operations. It is clear and precise.

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 implies that this is a cleanup operation for local history, and the parameter description reinforces the requirement for explicit user request. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like fl_undo or history-related tools, but the context makes it clear.

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