eda_pcb_select_control_clear_selected

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 behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the boolean return value ('returns: 操作是否成功'), but it does not explain what scope of selection is cleared, whether the operation mutates editor state irreversibly, or how it behaves on failure. This is thin coverage for a mutating 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 compact and front-loads the method signature, followed by a concise action phrase and return semantics. There is no wasted text, though the brevity means some contextual information is sacrificed.

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 clear-selection action, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the operation and the boolean return. However, with no annotations or output schema, it leaves out behavioral context such as target document scope and the effect on selected primitives, so it is not fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful signal by showing 'clearSelected()' with no arguments, clarifying that the generic 'args' array should be empty and that no positional parameters are expected beyond the optional windowId.

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: clearing the current selection in the PCB select control, via the explicit method signature 'pcb_SelectControl.clearSelected()' and the Chinese phrase '清除选中'. The 'pcb_' prefix and method name distinguish it from the analogous schematic clear-selection sibling, though the description does not explicitly contrast with it.

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 this tool should be used versus alternatives such as eda_sch_select_control_clear_selected or related selection commands. The description implies its use through the name, but it does not state context, conditions, or exclusions.

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