femm_select_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect: action=select clears the current selection before selecting. But it omits session semantics, error behavior, and return format, leaving significant behavioral ground uncovered for a state-mutating selection tool.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with purpose followed by the action semantics. The parenthetical is informative rather than filler. Little waste, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should be more self-sufficient. It covers the core selection behavior but leaves the session param, failure modes, and downstream effect of the selection unexplained, making it only minimally adequate for a 4-param tool.

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 0%, so the description must explain all four params. It meaningfully clarifies points, group, and the action semantics (select/clear), but the session parameter is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Post-processor block selection') and ties it to the femm_call('mo_blockintegral') workflow. It also differentiates from the sibling femm_block_integral by noting that tool does select+integrate+clear itself. An agent can identify the tool's role, though the femm_call framing is somewhat indirect.

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?

It describes what action=select and action=clear do, which implies when to use each, and the parenthetical hints that femm_block_integral is the alternative for the full workflow. However, it never explicitly states 'use this when you need X vs Y' and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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