photoshop_deselect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys the core effect (the active selection is removed), but does not state what happens when no selection exists (no-op vs error), whether it applies to any selection type, or whether it is undoable.

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?

A single three-word sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the target. For a no-argument, single-effect tool this is appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with no parameters and no annotations there is little left to cover. The only meaningful gap is the no-active-selection edge case, which keeps it from a 5.

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 no parameter meaning for the description to add; the schema and description are consistent. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless 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 (deselect) and resource (active selection) in a way that is unambiguous and easily distinguished from siblings like photoshop_invert_selection or photoshop_select_all. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, which keeps it 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?

The purpose implies when to use it (when a selection should be cleared), but there is no explicit guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as re-selecting or inverting. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the trigger condition.

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