set_selection

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burdenaine. It only states 'Set the node selection,' which adds no behavioral detail beyond the operation name. It does not disclose whether the selection is replaced or toggled, what side effects occur, or how null is handled. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely short and front-loaded with the verb phrase 'Set the node selection.' The Args block follows a conventional docstring pattern with no filler. While brevity borders on under-specification, the structure itself is clean and direct.

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 a single optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to fully document the call semantics. It omits essential details like the exact form of node paths, what an empty array means, and whether passing null resets the selection. An agent might guess the signature but cannot reliably perform the selection change without extra assumptions.

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 schema's only parameter has no description, and the description's 'Node paths to select' is nearly tautological with the schema's title. It adds no information about path syntax (absolute vs relative), escaping, or null behavior. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description was expected to fully explain this one parameter, but it does not.

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 starts with 'Set the node selection,' a clear verb and direct object that unambiguously names the operation. It stands apart from the many getter and setter siblings (e.g., get_selection, set_keyframe) because 'node selection' is a distinct resource accomplice. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related selection tools like get_selection or frame_selection, and it is vague about whether this affects the network editor or viewport selection.

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 description gives no guidance on when to call this tool or how it relates to alternatives. It does not mention that it complements get_selection, that it might be used before other node-manipulation steps, or that null node_paths could clear the selection. An agent is left to infer usage context entirely.

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