set_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core action and the optional viewport scroll, but it does not mention whether the current selection is replaced, how invalid nodeIds are handled, or that zoomToFit defaults to true (the schema states the default, not the description). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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. Every phrase communicates either the purpose or a key optional behavior, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally viable. However, it lacks guidance about selection replacement, invalid IDs, and when to prefer sibling tools, leaving clear gaps that the agent must infer.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'optionally scroll viewport to them' loosely maps to zoomToFit, but the schema already says 'Scroll and zoom to show selection (default: true)'. The nodeIds parameter is fully described in the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('nodes'), and adds the optional viewport-scrolling behavior. It is clear enough to distinguish from most style/creation siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named select_all_by_type or get_selection.

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 tool versus alternatives such as get_selection or select_all_by_type, and no mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the phrase 'Select nodes', which is not enough for an agent choosing among many selection-related siblings.

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