set_selection

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which alone would not tell an agent that an existing selection is discarded. The description supplies exactly that: the default behavior replaces the current selection. It stops short of saying whether invalid node names cause a partial or atomic failure.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then qualifies the default side effect immediately. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has only two parameters with the key side effect documented. Remaining gaps are the accepted format of `nodes` values and failure behavior, which are minor for a two-parameter UI-state operation.

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 carries the burden. It explains `add` well by describing its inverse effect, but `nodes` is left only as an array of strings with no indication of whether entries are node names, classes, or paths, nor what happens to names that don't resolve.

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: 'Select nodes in the live Nuke session', which cleanly separates it from the read-oriented sibling get_selection by verb alone. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, so it stops 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?

The parenthetical 'replaces the selection unless `add` is true' implies two distinct usage modes and steers the caller toward `add` when preserving state matters. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_selection, nor any prerequisite or error-condition guidance, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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