selection_set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context with "exactly," implying prior selection is discarded rather than appended, but it says nothing about invalid refs, partial success, or what state changes are observable afterward.

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 four-word sentence with the selection-replacement semantics front-loaded and zero padding. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, even though the content is thin.

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 needn't be described, but the description leaves the one required parameter's format unexplained and does not confirm replacement vs additive semantics or error behavior for unknown refs. For a state-mutating selection tool, that leaves meaningful gaps.

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% and the single `refs` parameter accepts int, string, or array with no rules. The description's "these objects" only vaguely implies the values are object references; it gives no clue whether they are IDs, names, or paths, or how the array form should be mixed.

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?

"Select exactly these objects" gives a verb (select) and a resource (objects), and the word "exactly" hints that this replaces the current selection rather than adding to it. But it never says what kind of objects or what a "ref" is, and against siblings like selection_get and selection_clear it barely differentiates its role beyond the name itself.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus selection_get (read current selection), selection_clear (empty it), or object_find (locate objects to select). No prerequisites, no mention of whether it can be called before objects exist, and no exclusions.

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