clear_automation

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; description adds that it removes all automation points (not a time range), manual parameter state remains, and undo can recover accidental clears. This context goes beyond 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by prerequisite, behavior, and recovery. Every sentence is necessary and informative, with no redundancy.

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, output schema exists, and destructive behavior, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, prerequisite, behavioral details, and recovery path. Completely adequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by instructing use of get_device_parameters to resolve the 'parameter' argument, which is not obvious from the schema alone.

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 uses specific verbs ('Delete...entire automation envelope') and resource ('one device parameter...from a clip'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like write_automation and undo. It also mentions the prerequisite tool get_device_parameters, reinforcing its focused purpose.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite ('Resolve the device and parameter with get_device_parameters first') and contrasts with alternatives (write_automation for replacing envelope, undo for recovery). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context and exclusions are clear.

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