clear_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that the tool removes the active selection on the named layer, but it does not mention edge-case behavior such as no selection, invalid layer name, or whether the operation is undoable. This is adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: the main operation is stated first, followed by a focused parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics clearly. It falls slightly short of complete because it omits edge-case behavior and any explicit alternative-routing guidance, but an output schema exists, reducing the burden to document return values.

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 only defines layer as a required string, providing minimal semantic meaning. The description enriches this significantly by specifying that layer must be the exact name as shown in the Contents pane, which is valuable practical guidance for an agent.

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 a specific resource ('any active selection on a layer'), so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It also adds the condition that this is the operation for removing an existing selection, which differentiates it from sibling tools like select_by_attribute.

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 implies the primary usage: use this when an active selection on a layer needs to be cleared. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related tools such as select_by_attribute, nor does it state what happens if no selection is active.

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