godot_set_selected_nodes

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

The description says 'Replace current editor node selection,' which clearly indicates a mutation of editor state. However, annotations mark readOnlyHint=false (implying a write) and destructiveHint=false (implying not destructive). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what annotations imply, such as that selection is 'replaced' rather than merely set. No contradiction, but limited additional insight.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary verb and object, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Perfectly sized for the information it needs to convey.

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 that sets selection, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. It doesn't mention side effects like what happens to the Inspector or Scene Tree, but the parameters hint at inspection behavior. Given that there is an output schema and the tool is small, the description is adequate but could mention that selection is editor-wide or scene-specific, which is covered by the parameter description. Missing some contextual nuances.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the schema itself includes detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'List of node paths...', 'Whether to clear existing editor selection...'). The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. However, the description's 'Replace' implies that clear_previous defaults to true, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate, but the description briefly reinforces parameter intent, nudging it to 4.

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 'Replace current editor node selection.' uses a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('editor node selection') that precisely conveys the tool's function. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like godot_set_editor_selection or godot_get_selected_nodes by emphasizing the action of replacing the current selection, which is clear and distinct.

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 description provides minimal context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of alternatives (e.g., godot_set_editor_selection) or conditions for when this tool is preferred. The sibling list includes many tools that might interact with nodes, but without explicit exclusions or scenarios, the agent must infer usage.

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