cascadeur_select_objects

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals mutation, and the description adds the useful behavior that an empty list clears the current selection. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not explain replacement semantics, error behavior, or how selection affects later actions.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the empty-list behavior is a valuable second sentence.

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 one-parameter selection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: pass exact objects to select, pass an empty list to clear. It does not mention how to discover valid object names, but the sibling cascadeur_list_objects exists for that purpose.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating that an empty list clears the selection, and 'exact objects' hints that strings are object identifiers. It does not specify the identifier format, case sensitivity, or behavior for invalid names.

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 specific verb ('Select') and resource ('objects'), and clarifies the selection is exact. It is distinguishable from the sibling cascadeur_select_frames, which operates on frames, and from list/get object 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?

The phrase 'for context-sensitive actions' indicates when the tool is useful, and 'An empty list clears selection' gives a concrete usage rule. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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