select_actors

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description corroborates this by explaining that selection is appended to or replaced. It adds real context beyond annotations: internal-name-only matching, non-fatal misses surfaced in not_found_names/not_found_count, and the editor-world restriction. It does not cover ordering or post-miss selection state, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and usage, then the warning, then the return shape — sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It is dense but every clause carries information; slightly long against the small 2-parameter surface.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields (selected_actors, selected_count, not_found_count, not_found_names, add_to_selection), states the failure semantics, and flags the editor-world scope, leaving nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters (actor_names, add_to_selection) are already documented in the schema with defaults and case-sensitivity. The description reinforces the internal-name constraint but adds no new syntax or format detail, matching the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb (select) plus resource (actors by name in the editor viewport/outliner) with the scope qualifier 'Editor world only.' It is clearly distinguished from siblings like find_actors_by_name, get_selected_actors and deselect_actors by naming its own matching rule and downstream role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (to stage input for selection-driven tools such as copy_actors with copy_selected, and move_actors_to_level, or to visually show the user), and routes label-based lookups to find_actors_by_name. The alternative and its selection condition are spelled out.

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