photoshop_selection_deselect

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

The description adds little beyond the annotations: it mentions that the same catalog policy and verification pipeline is used, but does not disclose side effects, failure conditions, or what state is modified. It does not contradict the annotations, so it avoids a 1.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the primary identification of the tool comes first. The second sentence adds pipeline context, though 'same' is vague without a named baseline.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and existing annotations, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the wrapped command and mentions shared verification. It falls short of a 4 because it never states the operation's effect in plain terms, leaving domain familiarity to fill the gap.

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 has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 explicitly maps the tool to the selection.deselect command, conveying the action (deselect) and resource (selection) without ambiguity. It does not, however, provide a plain-language statement of the effect, and it does not contrast the tool with select_all or command_execute.

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 invoke this tool versus alternatives such as photoshop_selection_select_all or the generic command executor. The only usage signal is the command name itself, which leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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