set_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses full pre-validation (atomicity), the specific clear approach avoiding clearAllSelected() to prevent side effects on box/note/dot, NO_UNDO behavior with batch dispatcher handling, and response capping. This is rich, actionable behavioral detail.

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 dense but relatively compact, covering multiple important behaviors in three sentences. It uses formatting (bold, code) effectively and every sentence adds value. Slightly heavy in technical jargon but not verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description covers key aspects like atomicity, undo, and response cap, but it omits return value expectations and fails to explain the ctx parameter. For a selection tool with 3 parameters, the description is above average but still incomplete.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions), so the description must compensate. It explains node_paths (pre-validation) and clear behavior, but neither the ctx parameter nor the clear_others parameter is explicitly named or explained. The description does not fully map to the three schema properties.

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 clearly states the tool 'overrides node selection' with a specific scope (add-scene-context-selection-materials). This distinguishes it from get_selection and other selection-related tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives as in the high calibration example.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses on internal mechanics (pre-validation, undo behavior) rather than usage context or prerequisites. There is no mention of when to prefer set_selection over get_selection or frame_selection.

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