set_selection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether this replaces the existing selection or adds to it, what happens when node_paths is null/default, whether the operation is reversible (undo), or if it affects the viewport/UI state.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It isn't padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of needed detail rather than from efficiency alone.

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 state-mutating selection tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. Key facts such as replace-vs-append behavior and null handling are absent, leaving the agent under-informed.

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% and the single parameter's description ('Node paths to select') essentially restates the parameter name. It does not clarify path format (e.g., '/obj/geo1'), the effect of the null default, or whether multiple paths are cumulative.

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 (Set) and resource (node selection), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_selection, so an agent gets no help choosing between reading and writing selection state.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_selection, no prerequisites, and no mention that passing null replaces/clears selection. The agent is left to infer all usage context.

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