obj_clear_highlights

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden alone. It does disclose that all highlights are removed at once and that a confirmation dictionary is returned, but it omits whether the operation is reversible/undoable, what happens with no active document, and whether it affects only the active view or the document state.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The trailing 'Returns:' block is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which slightly dilutes it.

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 zero-parameter, single-effect UI tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and target document adequately. Only the preconditions (active document required, undo behavior) are 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly does not invent any. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 ('Clear all net highlights') plus the document scope ('active schematic or PCB document'), so the agent knows exactly what is affected. It implicitly contrasts with the highlight-creation sibling (obj_highlight_net) via 'all', but never names a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus obj_highlight_net, obj_crossref_net, or obj_deselect_all, and no prerequisites such as requiring an open, active document with existing highlights. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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