clear_automation

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

The description states 'clear', indicating a mutation operation. The annotations include destructiveHint: false, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already conveys (non-destructive). It does not mention side effects like whether the automation arm is affected or if undo is supported.

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. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter clarifications without losing conciseness.

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 4 required parameters with no descriptions, no usage guidelines, and no mention of return behavior (though an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. The agent lacks information on what indices to use, how the parameter is specified, and what happens when the clip has no automation. The output schema might cover return values, but parameter ambiguity remains.

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 input schema has 4 required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, meaning no descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description does not explain any parameter, such as the format of 'parameter' (parameter name or index) or the meaning of indices. This completely fails to add semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Clear the clip automation envelope for a device parameter' is specific and uses a clear verb-resource combination. It distinctly indicates the action (clear) and the target (clip automation envelope for a device parameter), differentiating it from siblings like set_device_parameter or write_automation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is implied by the action but lacks context such as 'use when clip has automation envelopes' or 'do not use if parameter has no automation'. This is a gap.

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