obj_deselect_all

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the scope ('active document') and that a confirmation dictionary is returned, which tells the agent the call is non-destructive to document data. However it does not state whether the operation is editor-specific (schematic vs PCB), whether it can fail, or whether it affects any persistent 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?

Front-loaded and only two short lines. The 'Returns:' sentence is largely redundant given an output schema exists, but it is a minor cost, not clutter.

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, output-schema-backed utility, the description covers the essential facts: what it clears, on which document, and that it returns confirmation. Only the editor-scope nuance and the no-op edge case are absent.

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 and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed — the operation targets the active document implicitly.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Clear all object selection on the active document'. An agent immediately knows this is a bulk selection reset rather than a data mutation. It misses a chance to contrast with the sibling obj_select (the natural inverse), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer you call this when a clean selection state is needed before a batch operation. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of obj_select/obj_clear_highlights, and no statement about what happens if nothing is selected.

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