krita_clear_selection

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds helpful context beyond that: 'No guaranteed undo transaction' warns about irreversibility, and 'Reuse operation_id on retries' clarifies safe retry behavior. This aligns with the annotations and adds practical behavioral detail, though it could mention what exactly is destroyed beyond the selection.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical retry/undo warnings are placed immediately afterward, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 simple destructive clear operation, the description covers the essential behavior, the irreversible nature, and retry idempotency. The annotations cover the safety profile, and the tool is simple enough that an output schema is not necessary. It is slightly incomplete only because parameter roles and alternative tool routing are not addressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at operation_id through 'Reuse operation_id on retries.' instance_id and document_id are not explained, and their roles must be inferred from the schema titles and patterns. This is insufficient for a tool with three required opaque ID parameters.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Clear the explicit document's selection.' It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like krita_set_selection or krita_modify_selection, 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as krita_set_selection or krita_modify_selection. The notes about undo and operation_id are behavioral warnings, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer when clearing is appropriate.

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