context-select_objects

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Update object selection' without mentioning that the default action is REPLACE, how existing selection is affected, or what happens for invalid object names. The schema provides the action enum, but the description does not augment this with behavioral context, so the agent is left to infer the mutation semantics.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the operation and key parameter format. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is under-specified for a state-changing tool with three parameters and no output schema. It omits how the action parameter modifies the selection, the default REPLACE behavior, handling of the active object, and potential failure modes. The agent likely needs more information to invoke it correctly in various scenarios.

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 only adds meaning for the 'objects' parameter via 'comma-separated object names'. The 'action' and 'active' parameters are left to title-level hints and enum values, with no additional explanation from the description. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no comprehensive schema documentation.

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 ('Update') and resource ('object selection') with a clear modifier ('by comma-separated object names'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like context-select_all, which would select all objects rather than named ones. It is concise and unambiguous enough, though 'update' could be more precise about the selection operation.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as context-select_all or context-mesh_select_mode. The description only states the action without explaining the context in which it should be invoked or any prerequisites.

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