Clear all active selections in a Photoshop document, so edits apply to the entire canvas.
Deselect all selections
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | Optional Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. When set, the tool activates that document before running so a UI tab switch cannot retarget the edit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does state the core behavior: all selections are cleared. However, it does not mention whether an active document is required, whether the action is reversible, or that it only affects the selection state and not layer content.
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 description is a single concise phrase with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the verb is front-loaded.
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 operation with one optional, well-documented parameter, the description is usable, but it leaves out surrounding context such as when a deselect is needed, its effect on subsequent selection operations, and behavior when no selection exists. The tool is minimal but complete in syntax, not in explanatory context.
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 only parameter, document_id, is already fully described in the input schema, including how to obtain it and why it prevents UI retargeting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ('deselect') and resource ('all selections'), so an agent can tell this clears the active selection rather than selecting or inverting it. It doesn't explicitly tie the action to the active document, but the sibling set contains no competing deselect tool, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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 about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives such as select_all, invert_selection, or undo. The intended usage is only implicit in the action name; no explicit context or exclusion is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.