set_session_selection_tool

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that null clears the selection, but it does not mention side effects, replacement semantics, validation behavior, or any implications of 'highlighting' a modifier.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the core object shape and clear behavior with no filler. It is concise, though the phrase 'DAW modifier' could be clarified.

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 do not need explanation, but the description lacks usage context, parameter elaboration, and behavioral safety detail. With no annotations deep and sparse, the tool is not fully self-explanatory for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 add meaning beyond the bare string/null selection_json schema. It does add the shape {kind, id?, track_id?, time?}, which is useful, but it leaves project_path unexplained and does not define the individual fields or expected value formats.

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 uses a clear verb ('Highlight') and resource ('a DAW modifier') and further specifies the selection object shape and null-to-clear semantics isolate it from plain 'get' or 'set' tools. However, 'DAW modifier' is jargon-y and the description does not differentiate it from sibling session tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions are provided. The only context clue is the null-to-clear behavior, which is a usage hint but not sufficient guidance for selecting this tool over the many session-related siblings.

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