Clear selection / programmer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it explains the exact effect on selection and programmer values for each mode, notes verification behavior (Selection.CountTotalSelected == 0), mentions that programmer values cannot be read back for 'active', and discloses serialization against other mutations. It stops short of covering error conditions or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then efficiently details each mode. It is dense but avoids fluff; a bulleted format might improve readability, but the current one-paragraph structure is compact and information-rich.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers mode semantics, effects, verification, read-back limitations, and concurrency. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without requiring additional 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning by describing the concrete consequences of each enum value (deselects fixtures, deactivates values, discards every programmer value) beyond the schema's brief mapping. This extra detail on effects makes it more useful than the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb (clear) and resource (programmer selection/values), and precisely distinguishes the three mode behaviors (selection, active, all) with exact command names. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gma3_hardkeys_release_all or gma3_programmer, so it falls 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 mode descriptions imply when to use each variant (e.g., keep values vs discard all), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools or any exclusions. Usage is therefore implied rather than stated.

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