pcb_clear_selection

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), which matches 'clear all selection' — clearing is a state change but non-destructive and idempotent. The description adds only the 'all' scope and no new behavioral context, so it neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately terse for a simple state-clearing tool, though it forgoes the opportunity to add any routing or context.

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 low-complexity selection-clearing tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, plus 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. Only usage context is missing.

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%: both 'document' (UUID with auto-switch semantics) and 'instance_id' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the work.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'clear' the 'selection' in the 'PCB editor'. An agent can immediately tell this apart from pcb_get_selected (read) and pcb_select_net (set). It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as pcb_get_selected or pcb_select_net. The single sentence only describes the action, leaving the agent to infer context.

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