manage_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, such as whether setting a selection requires prior element references, whether it modifies the project state permanently, or if there are any constraints (e.g., only works on certain element types). The description only lists the actions without explaining consequences.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence, and front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words, but it omits critical detail about the other parameters and behavioral context, which might be a case of over-conciseness.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, but the description does not compensate for the missing param semantics or behavioral context. It lacks information about return values (though output schema exists, it could be complex) and fails to explain the 'port' and 'guids' parameters. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is incomplete.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It mentions 'action' with allowed values but does not explain 'guids' (likely a list of GUIDs) or 'port' (likely an API port). The description adds minimal value by naming 'action', but fails to explain the other parameters' semantics, which is essential given the 0% coverage.

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 tool's purpose: to get, set, or clear the current element selection in Archicad. It specifies the verb and resource, and the 'action' parameter distinguishes the three modes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'query_elements' or 'set_element_data' beyond the selection scope, which is somewhat implied.

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 indicates the tool is used to manage the current selection, which implies it should be used when the agent needs to manipulate or retrieve the selected elements. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like 'query_elements' or 'set_element_data', nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as requiring an open project.

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