select

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that selection is confined to the active editing context, that a nested target is silently substituted by its top-level container, and that the reply's 'notes' explain the substitution – non-obvious behavior an agent could not infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its purpose, then the identification rules, then the scoping caveat. The two sentences are dense but each clause adds decision-relevant information; minor tightening is possible but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, entity identification, scoping limits, substitution fallback, and the 'notes' feedback channel. Only group_names semantics and confirmation of non-destructive preview are left implicit.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description must compensate, and it does for 'ids' by warning against the volatile entityID/'id' field and pointing to persistent_id from get_selection/list_entities. 'group_names' is named but its semantics (matching rules, ambiguity) are not elaborated.

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 and resource ('Replace the SketchUp selection') plus the motivating rationale ('so the user can see what the assistant means'). It is immediately distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_selection.

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?

Explains the context in which it is used (previewing intent before a change) and offers two identification routes, ids or group_names. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives explicitly, but the intended usage is clear.

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