deselect_actors

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds two constraints not in structured data: it is editor-world only and matches INTERNAL names, plus the rationale about not picking up leftovers. It does not explain why the op is flagged destructive or whether the change is undoable, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then usage guidance, then constraints, then return shape — a sensible order with no filler. The rationale clause is slightly long, but every sentence carries navigational or semantic value.

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 two-param selection tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the action, the alternative tools, the editor-world prerequisite, the name-matching rule, and even the return shape. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description names deselect_all and reinforces the INTERNAL-name matching rule, but adds no syntax or precedence detail beyond what the schema already states (the schema itself documents that deselect_all wins over actor_names).

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+resource ('Drop specific actors from the editor selection') and immediately frames scope ('or clear it entirely with deselect_all'). It explicitly positions itself as 'The counterpart of select_actors', so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('use the clear-all form to leave the editor in a known state before a tool that acts on the selection') and names the downstream alternatives (copy_actors, move_actors_to_level) that motivate the call. Also names the round-trip sibling select_actors.

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