pbi_deselect

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the trick and return values but does not clarify whether the operation is destructive or reversible, what side effects occur (e.g., clearing filters), or any permissions needed. The term 'clear selection' implies mutation, but no safety information is provided.

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 very concise: one sentence and a return type line. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the jargon 'neighbour-page-and-back trick' could be expanded slightly for clarity, but overall it is efficient with no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and return shape. However, it lacks explanation of the trick's implications, the exact return fields' meanings, and when this tool is appropriate compared to peers. It is minimally complete.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage by schema), so the baseline is 3. The description does not need to add parameter details, but it does not explain any implicit inputs or the behavior of the trick beyond the schema. It adds some context but no additional parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool clears visual/group selection and specifies the technique used ('neighbour-page-and-back trick'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_click or pbi_context_menu. However, the jargon may be slightly ambiguous for an AI agent, preventing a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clicking the canvas). The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites. An agent would have no information about ideal scenarios or when to avoid this tool.

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