blender_object_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether selection is additive or replacing by default, what happens when no object matches the name or pattern, whether names and pattern can be combined, or whether selection applies to the active scene. The existence of deselect_others hints that selection may be additive, but the description never states it.

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 six words, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no wasted content. It is maximally concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral context that other dimensions have to penalize.

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 tool is low complexity (3 optional params, no nesting, no output schema), but critical semantics remain undocumented in both the description and the schema: whether names and pattern are mutually exclusive or combinable, the default behavior of deselect_others, and failure handling when nothing matches. With no annotations or output schema to fill these gaps, the definition is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 100%, with all three parameters clearly described and the pattern parameter including a concrete glob example. The description adds only marginal value beyond the schema by tying the two selection modes ('by name or pattern') together, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Select'), a specific resource ('objects'), and the selection mechanism ('by name or pattern'). The object-level resource implicitly distinguishes it from the blender_mesh_select* family, but it never explicitly names or contrasts any sibling, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_object_get, blender_object_list, or the mesh-selection tools. The tool's role as a precursor to downstream object operations is left entirely to inference from the naming convention.

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