godot_set_editor_selection

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

The descriptions do not contradict the annotations: setting a selection is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, which is consistent. The description adds the minor behavioral context that the operation targets the 2D/3D editor viewport, but does not disclose effects such as whether an open scene is required, what happens on invalid paths, or how it interacts with the Scene dock. Note a terminology mismatch: the description says 'viewport' while the schema says the Scene dock, which could mislead.

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 single sentence is brief and front-loaded, but under-specification is not conciseness. It conveys no usage context, effects, or distinctions, so the short length reflects missing information rather than efficient structure.

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 tool with a confusable sibling (godot_set_selected_nodes) and two nuanced parameters, this definition omits the distinctions an agent most needs to route correctly. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the missing when/why and effect coverage leaves the description insufficient.

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 top-level schema shows 0% coverage and the description adds nothing about node_paths or clear_previous, placing the full burden on the schema. Although the nested SetEditorSelectionInput does describe both parameters (including a useful example), the description compensates not at all and even introduces confusion by describing the target as the viewport while the schema parameter mentions the Scene dock.

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 has a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('selected nodes') scoped to the 2D/3D editor viewport, so the core purpose is legible. However, it does nothing to distinguish from the sibling godot_set_selected_nodes, which sounds almost identical, nor from godot_focus_node. An agent cannot tell which selection-related tool to pick from this text.

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?

No guidance is offered on when to use this tool over godot_set_selected_nodes, godot_focus_node, or godot_get_selected_nodes. The description gives neither context, exclusions, nor alternatives, forcing the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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