map_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses deselection behavior and connection scope, but doesn't state whether node selection replaces existing selections (though the schema does) or how simultaneous node+connection selection behaves. Some behavioral details remain implicit.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently covers all key usage points without redundancy.

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?

For a selection tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases well. However, it leaves ambiguity about interactions between node and connection selection (e.g., whether both can be selected simultaneously and how that affects existing selections).

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by explaining that node_ids enables multi-select, node_id is legacy, and empty array/null deselects. This enhances the parameter understanding.

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 function: programmatically select nodes/stickies and/or a connection. It distinguishes from siblings like map_get_selection (which reads selection) and map_add_node (which creates nodes), and clarifies legacy vs multi-select.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: node_ids for multi-select, node_id as legacy single-select, empty array or null to deselect, and connection selection is single only. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but gives clear context and scope limitations.

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