deselect

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them (clearing an already-empty selection is harmless). The description adds no context beyond them, such as which selection is affected or whether named selections are also removed, and it does not contradict the readOnlyHint=false flag since selection state is application state.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word describes the effect and nothing is redundant.

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-argument state change with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the agent needs to call it correctly. A brief note on whether named selections are preserved would make it 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No schema-level detail is left unstated.

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?

"Clears the current selection" names a specific verb (clears) and object (the current selection), so the effect is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling `select` tool (e.g., that it is the inverse operation), but the opposite action is self-evident from the wording.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as `select` with an empty argument or `hide`, so usage is only implied by the tool name and description. For a zero-parameter, single-purpose tool this implication is sufficient, but it is not spelled out.

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