Select multiple groups of objects in one call to streamline material assignment workflows.
Select multiple groups of objects in one call.
Each group: {"replace": true, "names": ["Obj1", "Obj2"]} Useful for material assignment workflows.
Args: groups: List of selection groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groups | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation changes selection and shows the replace/names payload, but it never states what 'replace' does, whether selection is cumulative, or what happens with missing names. That leaves a non-trivial behavioral gap.
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-loaded: the core behavior appears in the first sentence, and the code-block example is easy to scan. Every sentence contributes; no 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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should fully specify the group structure and selection semantics. It provides an example, but omits the meaning of 'replace' and any constraints on object names, so the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation in edge cases.
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 only describes 'groups' as an array of arbitrary objects (0% coverage), so the example payload is the sole semantic documentation. It usefully reveals the replace flag and names list, but it never defines the field meanings or requirements, leaving the structure only partially specified.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Select multiple groups of objects') and clarifies the batch nature ('in one call'). The example payload reinforces that this is a grouped selection tool, distinguishing it from single-object selection operations.
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?
It explicitly identifies a relevant workflow ('material assignment workflows'), giving an agent a concrete trigger context. However, it never names sibling alternatives like select_objects or states when not to use batch_select, so exclusion guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.