invert_selection

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, indicating a local state-changing operation. The description restates the action but adds no further behavioral details such as prerequisites (e.g., must have an active selection) or side effects, so it adds limited value beyond the structured hints.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a brief rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 simple selection-inversion tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and a use case. However, it omits any explanation of the required 'filename' parameter and does not state whether an existing selection is a prerequisite, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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% and the description makes no mention of the sole 'filename' parameter. It does not clarify what the filename refers to (e.g., the sprite file) or that it is required, leaving the parameter entirely undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Swap what is selected for what is not.' This clearly conveys the action of inverting a selection. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like modify_selection or deselect, but the action itself is distinct.

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 second sentence provides a concrete use case: 'Selecting a character's silhouette and inverting gives the background, which is usually easier than describing the background directly.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions.

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