set_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether this replaces or augments the current selection, how the default method 'NEW' behaves, or that it mutates map state. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the mutation semantics are undisclosed.

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 short sentence with the key input front-loaded and zero filler. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasteful.

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 4-parameter selection-mutation tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits the one thing the schema cannot convey: how this differs from select_features and what the method modes do to existing selections.

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 schema already documents oids, method (with its five modes), map_name, and layer_name. The description only echoes the ObjectID concept and adds no format, limit, or semantics beyond the schema, which is the defined baseline for full coverage.

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 and resource ('select specific features') and the input key ('by ObjectID'), so the action is clear. However, it draws no boundary against the close sibling select_features, leaving an agent to guess which one is intended.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as select_features, select_by_location, or get_selection, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer all routing from the name alone.

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