select_linked

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral facts: a pre-existing selection is required, the operation is confined to one mesh, and the call returns a confirmation dict. It omits edit-mode/mesh-select-mode requirements and what happens when no selection exists or the object name is invalid, which are the main failure modes for a selection operator.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope, prerequisites, and sibling routing in a tight sequence. The only filler is the 'Returns: Confirmation dict' line, which is redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, scope, and sibling alternatives adequately. Missing only the mode/error behavior needed to avoid a failed call in an unselected or object-mode context.

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 should compensate, but 'object_name: Name of the mesh object' merely restates the schema title. The single parameter is largely self-explanatory, and no format, naming convention, or active-object default is added, so this is minimum viable rather than additive.

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 and resource: 'Grow the current mesh selection to everything connected to it,' elaborated as connected vertices, edges, and faces. It also implicitly separates itself from select_objects (whole objects) and select_similar, so an agent can place it precisely among selection tools.

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?

Explicit preconditions ('Needs a starting selection'), named alternatives to satisfy them (select_by_index, select_by_axis), and an explicit exclusion with the correct substitute ('Works inside one mesh; to select whole objects use select_objects'). Nothing about when to choose this tool is left to inference.

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