plasticity_select_nodes

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds real context by saying the operation 'replaces' the current selection, which tells the agent what the destructive act actually destroys. However, it says nothing about the required revision parameter's role (likely optimistic-concurrency guard) or behavior with empty lists.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the verb and the replacement semantics before enumerating resources. Efficient, though the clause 'so the agent can point out assembly content' is slightly padded.

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 destructive, 5-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is adequate on purpose but leaves the required revision parameter and the when-to-use routing unexplained. An agent could call it, but with 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It maps four of the five parameters (bodyIds, instanceIds, referenceMeshIds, groupIds) to their content types, which is useful, but it never mentions 'revision' — the one required parameter, which is a notable omission.

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 ('replace') and enumerates the mixed resources selected (bodies, instances, reference meshes, groups), which distinguishes it from the single-type siblings like plasticity_select_bodies or plasticity_select_faces. The mismatch with the name's 'nodes' terminology is minor, but the purpose is otherwise clear.

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 description implies the use case (a mixed-type selection spanning several content types) but never states when to prefer this over plasticity_select_bodies or the other per-type select tools, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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