eda_pcb_net_unselect_all_nets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core behavior (unselect all nets) and the return value (Promise<boolean> indicating success). However, it does not explain side effects or scope boundaries, such as whether the operation applies to the active document, whether it also affects other primitive selections, or whether it is undoable. The basic behavior is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded: API signature, natural-language meaning, and return type. Each line earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 no-argument operation, the description is minimally viable. But with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of alternatives or effect boundaries, an agent lacks enough context to confidently choose this over the similar clearing/unselecting tools. It is not misleading, but it is incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 descriptions are complete for the wrapper fields (args and windowId), but generic. The description adds meaning via the method signature 'pcb_Net.unselectAllNets()', which signals that no official arguments are required and the args array should be empty. This goes beyond the generic schema description and helps the agent construct a correct call.

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 operation: '取消选中所有网络' (unselect all nets) and gives the API signature. It names both the resource (nets) and the action (unselect all), so an agent can understand the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like eda_pcb_net_unselect_net or eda_pcb_select_control_clear_selected, leaving the scope distinction implicit in the name and phrasing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that this is for deselecting all nets as opposed to a single net, nor does it distinguish from clearing all selection in the PCB document. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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