select_all_geometry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the four action modes and that a count of selected elements is returned, but it omits important operating context such as whether the mesh must be in edit mode, what 'all geometry' means (vertices, edges, faces), and how action TOGGLE differs from INVERT.

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 short, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The Args and Returns sections are clearly separated, though the Args block largely repeats structured schema information rather than adding new detail.

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 an output schema, so return-value explanation is not strictly required. However, for a selection-modifying operation with no annotations, the description should clarify mode prerequisites and usage context beyond the basic action list, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 compensate for both parameters. It names object_name and lists the action values, which is minimally adequate, but the action list duplicates the schema's enum and adds no deeper semantics such as default behavior or the practical difference between INVERT and TOGGLE.

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 set (select, deselect, invert) and a clear resource scope ('all geometry on a mesh'), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like select_objects, select_by_index, and select_by_axis. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no guidance about when to use it instead of alternatives such as select_objects, select_by_index, select_by_axis, or select_similar. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context cues to help the agent choose among selection tools.

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