Sets the canvas selection to one or more sketches by ID, with an option to add them to the current selection instead of replacing it.
Set the canvas selection to one or more sketches by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sketchIds | Yes | IDs of sketches to select | |
| addToSelection | No | Add to existing selection instead of replacing (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says selection is being set but not what happens to a pre-existing selection (the schema's addToSelection default hints at replacement, but the description never confirms it), whether the selection persists across calls, or how invalid/unresolvable IDs are handled. For a state-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the gaps scored in other dimensions unaddressed.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. It stops short of explaining what a 'canvas selection' entails or how the resulting selection affects downstream tools, which is the main thing an agent cannot get from the schema.
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 100%, so both sketchIds and addToSelection are already documented, including the default behavior. The description adds only the useful nuance that one or more IDs are accepted and that they are sketch IDs, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Set the canvas selection to one or more sketches by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from read-side siblings like get_selection and from structural mutations like group_sketches or arrange_sketches. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The closest siblings, get_selection (read) and group_sketches/arrange_sketches (which also act on sketch sets), are not contrasted, so the agent must infer the division of labor from names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.