context.select_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function but fails to disclose that the default action is REPLACE (replacing current selection), how the 'active' parameter affects behavior, or whether the operation is reversible. The tool modifies selection, which could be destructive if not used carefully, but the description does not warn about this.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient, but for a tool with three parameters (action, active, objects), it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. The conciseness is good but at the cost of completeness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (selection modification with multiple actions and an optional active object), the lack of output schema, and the wide set of sibling tools (including context.select_all, context.set_active, etc.), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the action enum values, how to use the active parameter, or the required format of objects. The agent would need to infer usage from the schema alone, which is incomplete.

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%, meaning no descriptions inside the schema properties beyond titles. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides (parameter titles like 'comma-separated object names' for 'objects'). Since the description does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions, it fails to help the agent understand parameter formats or usage constraints.

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 'Update object selection by comma-separated object names' clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'object selection', and specifies the method 'comma-separated object names'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling 'context.select_all' which selects all objects without specifying names. However, it does not mention the 'action' parameter which controls how the names combine with the current selection, leaving ambiguity about what 'update' means.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'context.select_all' or other selection tools. It lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions. The context of the sibling tools indicates multiple selection methods exist, but the description fails to help the agent choose correctly.

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