select_none

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the call returns a status dict and that the operation targets a specific image index, which signals this is a per-image mutation. It does not say whether the call errors when no selection exists, whether it affects only the active image, or whether it is idempotent.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line. The parameter list duplicates schema information and 'Returns status dict' is a terse but useful addition; nothing is padded or verbose.

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 trivial zero-required-parameter selection tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the single parameter, and the return shape. Only minor behavioral details (error behavior, active-image assumption) 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define the lone parameter, and it does identify image_index as the 'target image index' with a default of 0. That is roughly the minimum needed, but for a single optional integer parameter it is sufficient 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?

Uses a specific verb phrase ('Remove / deselect all selections') against a clear resource, so an agent immediately knows this clears the active selection. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like select_all, invert_selection, or modify_selection, which would have earned 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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as invert_selection or modify_selection, and no prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active image or existing selection). The only guidance is the implicit 'deselect everything' reading of the name.

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