envelope_clear_range

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'delete' which implies destructive action, but doesn't mention reversibility, side effects, or return value. Adequate but could be more transparent about behavior.

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?

Description is concise with a clear action sentence followed by parameter list. The parameter list is informative but could be more compact (e.g., combine fx_index/param_index). Overall efficient.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides core function and parameter meanings. It misses details on parameter combination (e.g., when to use envelope_name vs fx_index), error conditions, and return value. Functional but not fully complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaningful constraints (start_time >=0, end_time > start_time) and clarifies fx_index/param_index usage. However, it lacks explanation of envelope_name default and relationship between 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?

The description clearly states 'Delete all envelope points in a time range' using a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('envelope points in a time range'). It distinguishes from siblings like envelope_add_points (add) and envelope_get_points (read).

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 explicitly specify when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies usage by its action, but lacks explicit context or exclusions. Given siblings, the purpose is clear, but no direct guidance.

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