eda_sch_select_control_do_select_primitives

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reports the signature and a Boolean success return; it does not state whether the selection replaces or augments the current selection, how invalid IDs are handled, or what side effects occur.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: a signature line, a one-line purpose, and a return description. No filler or repetition; each line earns its place.

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 simple selection call, the definition is minimally sufficient: it identifies the input, the target primitives, and the return type. However, without annotations or an output schema, it should also clarify selection behavior (replace vs. add) and error/window handling, which are meaningful gaps.

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 args field is a generic positional array, but the description adds the key semantic detail that the argument is primitiveIds with type string | Array<string>. This helps an agent construct the call correctly, though windowId semantics are only covered by 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?

The description clearly states the tool selects primitives by primitive ID and includes the API signature, so an agent can understand the core action. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like do_cross_probe_select or clear_selected, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the other schematic select-control tools, such as cross-probe selection, clearing selection, or reading selected primitives. The intended usage is only implied by the name and the phrase 'select by primitive ID'.

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