select_none

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level action, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the selection is cleared from all images or just the one specified), whether the operation is undoable, or why an image_id parameter is required. This lack of detail is a notable gap for a mutation-like operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a seemingly simple operation, though the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of parameter semantics. It earns full credit for conciseness but loses one point for being too sparse to be fully self-sufficient.

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 has a required parameter and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the role of 'image_id', the return value (even though an output schema exists, the description doesn't hint at what it contains), or how the tool behaves in edge cases. The sibling tools provide selection context, but the description itself leaves key aspects unaddressed.

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 schema coverage is 0%—the description does not mention the 'image_id' parameter at all. Since the schema only provides the type and requirement, the description should clarify why the image_id is needed and what it identifies (e.g., the image whose selection should be cleared). It provides zero added meaning.

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 'Clear the image selection' uses a specific verb ('clear') and a clear resource ('image selection'), making its purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling selection tools like select_all, invert_selection, and the various selection primitives.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like select_all or invert_selection. It does not state any context, prerequisites, or mention that it deselects the current selection, leaving the user to infer the appropriate usage scenario.

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