Clear the page

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the concrete destruction scope (every block) and the notable exception (the chat survives so the person can keep talking), which is meaningful context beyond the hints. It says nothing about reversibility or undo, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive scope and the preserved element front-loaded before the usage caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool whose annotations already flag destructiveness, the description covers what is removed, what survives, and when it is appropriate. The only omission is whether the operation can be undone, which matters given the destructive hint and the existence of a sibling undo_change.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and there is no parameter information the description needs to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no space on parameters.

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 with exact scope: 'Remove every block from the canvas except the chat.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from remove_component and clear_conversation by naming what it preserves and where to go for chat removal.

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 an explicit gating condition ('Only when the person asks to start over') and names the alternative route ('to remove the chat too, call remove_component on it'). Both when-to-use and the alternative are spelled out.

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