Select elements

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only but non-destructive, which is odd without context; the description resolves that by disclosing the key side effect that an empty list clears the current selection. It does not say whether selection is transient UI state or persisted, which is the remaining behavioral question.

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, purpose first and the edge-case behavior second. Nothing redundant.

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 two-parameter selection tool with no output schema, this covers purpose, intent, and the clear-selection edge case. Missing only what is returned and how invalid ids are handled.

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 50% — tabId is documented in-schema while ids is bare. The description adds that ids are element ids and that an empty array is meaningful, but leaves the 500-item cap and id format to the schema.

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 elements by id') and adds the intent (so the user sees which ones you mean), which separates it from mutation siblings like snipaya_update_items or snipaya_delete_items. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'so the user sees which ones you mean' implies the usage context (visual highlighting during a conversation) and the empty-list case is covered. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over snipaya_update_items or snipaya_delete_items, or what happens with invalid ids.

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