select_actors

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotency; the description adds real value by explaining that an empty replace-mode call clears the selection, which justifies the destructive flag. However, it never explains what add or toggle do, nor the concurrency role of expected_revision, so the mutation behavior remains partly opaque.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity comes at the cost of coverage rather than being a virtue in itself.

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?

This is a 5-parameter, 4-required mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation-level detail about revision semantics or mode behavior; the description covers only a fraction of that burden. An agent could not reliably invoke add/toggle modes or satisfy expected_revision from this text.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely doesn't. It mentions the 256 cap (already encoded as maxItems) and one mode edge case, but leaves mode's add/toggle values, expected_revision, browser_session_id, and map_session_id entirely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ("Select") and states a capacity limit, but it refers to "editor IDs" rather than actors, leaving the agent to infer that the resource is actors in the map editor. It also doesn't distinguish selection-state mutation from siblings like list_actors or place_actor.

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 versus list_actors, place_actor, or move_actors. The only usage-adjacent statement is "An empty replace clears selection," which explains one edge case but not the decision context.

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