Select shapes

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining that it changes both the selection and the on-screen page but does not modify the drawing. This gives important context about side effects and non-persistence.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary, a single clarifying sentence about side effects, and a clear parameter list. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the purpose, side effects, parameters and defaults. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable. No important context appears missing.

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?

Even though the schema has no descriptions, the Args section fully explains each parameter: shape_ids as the IDs to select, page with default behavior ('Omit for the page on screen'), and document with default behavior ('Omit for the active document').

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 clearly states the action ('Select shapes') and the resource ('in the Visio window'), and explains the intent ('to show the user what you mean'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like visio_get_shape or visio_list_shapes.

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?

It indicates when to use the tool (to visually show the user which shapes are meant) and clarifies that it only affects the on-screen selection, not the drawing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as visio_get_shape or visio_set_shape_text, though the purpose is fairly clear.

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