select_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so on the two highest-risk points: it silently destroys the existing selection unless append is set, and an unselectable name raises an error rather than succeeding quietly. It stops short of stating document/context requirements or whether the selection persists across operations.

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 tight sentences: what it selects, the default-vs-append rule, and the failure mode. The destructive default is front-loaded immediately after the purpose, before the optional modifier.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the sole nested parameter is fully documented in-schema. Selection replacement semantics and error behavior are covered; only preconditions (active document, valid selection context) are absent, which is a minor gap for a one-parameter 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 100%, with both feature_name and append documented in-schema including examples and the default. The description restates the append behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb ("Select") plus enumerated resource types (feature, sketch, plane, component), which is clear and scoped. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as select_face_edges or get_selected_entities, so an agent must infer the boundary from the entity types alone.

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 explains the two modes of use (replace by default, append:true to accumulate) with a concrete example of selecting several features in turn. It gives no guidance on when to prefer the sibling select_face_edges for faces/edges, nor on prerequisites like an active document, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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