Set the current SketchUp selection using existing entity IDs; pass an empty list to clear all selected entities.
Set selection using existing entity IDs; empty list clears selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | No | ||
| entity_ids | Yes | ||
| active_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / properties / active_pathAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 32,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / $refAdded value: +"#/properties/active_path/items"Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / exclusiveMinimumRemoved value: -0Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / minimumRemoved value: --9007199254740991Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / typeRemoved value: -"integer"Input schema / properties / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful fact that this replaces the selection and that an empty list clears it, but says nothing about invalid-ID handling, model scoping, or what active_path does.
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 tight sentence with the core contract front-loaded and the clear-behavior edge case second. Efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description leaves model_id and active_path undefined and gives no error or return semantics. What is present is accurate but far from sufficient.
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% across three parameters. The description only gestures at entity_ids ('existing entity IDs'); model_id and active_path are entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so the agent has no way to know what active_path (a bounded integer path) means.
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+resource ('Set selection') and the input contract ('existing entity IDs'), which is enough to distinguish it from sibling selection_get. It does not explicitly name that sibling as the read counterpart, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 phrase 'using existing entity IDs' implies IDs must already be valid (hinting at entity_list/entity_inspect as the source), but this is never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of selection_get as the read alternative, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.