Definir Selection Basket

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

The description adds a behavioral detail not captured by the annotations: the previous selection is lost. This is useful context because destructiveHint=false might suggest no destructive effect, but the description clarifies that the old selection is replaced. It does not cover other behaviors like permissions or rate limits, but given the annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, the added note is valuable.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the key behavioral effect (previous selection lost) is stated immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple setter with one well-defined parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the operation completely. The agent knows what it does, what input it expects, and the consequence of overwriting. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The schema fully describes the 'guids' parameter (22-character IFC GUIDs, min 1, max 5000). The description only reiterates 'GUIDs IFC informados' without adding new semantic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies; the description does not compensate further.

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 clearly states the verb (substitui/replaces), the resource (Selection Basket), and the input (IFC GUIDs). It also distinguishes from the sibling solibri_get_selection_basket by naming the opposite operation. The effect (previous selection lost) is included, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool (to set the selection basket) but does not explicitly mention alternatives, conditions, or exclusions. While the sibling get_selection_basket provides an obvious contrast, the description itself offers no usage guidance beyond the basic operation.

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