fix_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fix (lock)' without explaining what locking entails—whether it's reversible, if it prevents modifications, or what side effects occur. The lack of detail reduces transparency.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so brief that it may be under-informative, but conciseness itself is a strength.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no annotations, output schema exists), the description should at least explain the parameter and the outcome of locking. It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool among many selection-related siblings.

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?

The input schema has one parameter 'target' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'target' does—it might limit the lock to a specific fixture, but this is unclear. The agent cannot infer the parameter's purpose from the description.

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: 'Fix (lock) the current fixture selection.' The verb 'Fix' is clarified by 'lock', making it specific. While it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'align_selection' or 'invert_selection', the action of locking is unique enough to infer differentiation.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or scenarios where locking is appropriate. This leaves the agent without guidance on optimal invocation.

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