set_selection

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing. It does not say whether the previous selection is replaced or cleared, what null or an empty array means, or whether the operation requires specific editor state.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but its brevity is under-specification rather than tightness: nothing is front-loaded beyond a restatement of the name, and no useful detail follows.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description needs to do all the explanatory work and instead does none. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool on a stateful selection mutation from this text.

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% for the single parameter node_paths, and the description adds no meaning about its format (e.g. scene-graph path syntax) or the distinction between null (default) and an empty list. This is the only gap the description could have closed and it does not.

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?

"Set the node selection" names a specific verb and resource, so an agent can roughly tell it modifies which nodes are selected. However, it gives no scope detail (replace vs. add vs. clear) and does not distinguish it from siblings like get_selection or frame_selection beyond the verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of how this relates to get_selection or frame_selection. The agent must guess the appropriate context from the name alone.

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