Clear the active selection so edits apply to the whole layer and future edits are not unintentionally scoped.
Clear the selection, so edits affect the whole layer again.
A real step, not a formality: the selection lives in a sidecar beside the sprite and
persists across calls, so leaving one active will silently scope every later edit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond that: the selection persists across calls in a sidecar and can silently scope future edits, making this a necessary state-clearing operation rather than a formality. This is exactly the kind of hidden-state disclosure that annotations cannot provide.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by a compact rationale. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.
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 simple state-clearing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: it explains what is cleared and why it matters. The lack of any mention of the filename parameter or return value is a minor gap, but not critical given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema has a single required 'filename' parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the filename parameter at all. However, with only one parameter (baseline 4 for 0 params, but here 1 param with no description), the baseline is adjusted: the description's silence on the parameter is a gap, but not severe since the parameter is self-evident from context (the sprite file). A score of 3 reflects that the description adds no parameter-specific meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Clear') and resource ('the selection'), and immediately explains the effect: 'edits affect the whole layer again.' It is easily distinguished from siblings like modify_selection, invert_selection, and select_region, which create or alter selection rather than clear it.
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?
It clearly implies when to use it by warning that leaving a selection active will 'silently scope every later edit,' effectively guiding the agent to call deselect before doing layer-wide edits. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.