select_by_axis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that 'extend' adds rather than replaces the current selection, implying the default replaces it, but it omits prerequisites (active object/edit mode), what happens on empty selection, and failure modes for a mutating selection operation.

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-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact Args block and a one-line Returns. Efficient overall, though the Returns line partially duplicates the existing output schema rather than adding new information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained further, and all four parameters are documented despite 0% schema coverage. The remaining gap is behavioral entry conditions (object state / selection mode) for a tool with no annotations to lean on.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it defines 'sign' values POS/NEG/ALIGN in semantic terms beyond the enum labels and explains 'extend' as additive selection. All four parameters are addressed, though axis is only restated as X/Y/Z from the enum.

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?

States a specific verb (select) and resource (geometry on one side of the object along an axis), plus a plain-language gloss ('the top', 'the front', 'the left half') that makes the tool immediately identifiable. It is clearly distinct from siblings such as select_by_index, select_similar, and select_faces_by_sides.

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 phrase 'The usual way to say "the top"...' implies the intended use case clearly, but the description never states when to prefer this over sibling selection tools like select_by_index or select_similar, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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