Replaces the live Flax Editor actor selection using actor GUIDs, and clears the selection when given an empty list.
Replaces the live Flax Editor actor selection with the actors identified by GUID. Pass an empty list to clear the selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actorIds | Yes | Actor GUIDs from editor_scene_graph. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selected | Yes | ||
| mainThreadId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key overwrite semantic ('Replaces' rather than appends or toggles) and the clear-selection case, but says nothing about permission/auth needs, what happens with invalid or stale GUIDs, or whether the change is undoable in the editor.
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, zero filler. The primary action comes first and the edge-case behavior (empty list) follows, which is the right ordering for an agent scanning for the main effect.
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?
With a single fully-documented parameter and an output schema covering returns, the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is failure-mode behavior for invalid GUIDs, which matters somewhat for a state-mutating editor call but is not disqualifying.
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 100%, so the parameter's type and source are already documented. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by defining the empty-array case as 'clear the selection', which is behavior the schema cannot express.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('Replaces the live Flax Editor actor selection') and the GUID-based input, which lets an agent distinguish it from the read-only sibling editor_get_selection. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings by name, so it lands just below the top mark.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you want to change the current selection, and empty the list to clear it. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, no mention of alternatives (e.g. editor_get_selection to read state first), and no prerequisites such as a live editor connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.