blender_select_objects

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only, idempotent, or destructive; the description adds context by explaining that selection changes affect subsequent operators. It also clarifies that both selection and active object are changed. This adds value beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the practical reason for the tool. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 selection-mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus schema annotations give an agent enough to understand the tool's role and parameters. It could be slightly more complete by describing what happens when 'active' or 'objects' are absent, but the defaults in the schema cover most of that.

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?

The input schema documents 'objects' and 'response_format' well, and the description's phrase 'active object' gives partial meaning to the 'active' parameter. However, the description itself adds no parameter-specific details, and the 'active' field lacks schema-level description, so semantics for that parameter remain under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource ('Set the selection and active object') and explains that this is how operations target objects. It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling blender_select_by.

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 sentence 'Many operators operate on the selection, so this is how you target them' provides clear when-to-use context: run this before operators that act on the current selection. It stops short of naming alternatives or giving explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it does not earn a 5.

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