set_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the empty-list-clears behavior, which is useful. Yet it does not explicitly state that the selection is replaced wholesale, nor does it mention error behavior or return value. Some transparency but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes an important edge case. No redundancy or irrelevant content.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers core selection behavior, the empty-list case, and parameter purpose. A minor gap is not explicitly saying 'replaces current selection,' but overall this is nearly complete for such a straightforward tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description restates parameter name and type ('Integer IDs') which duplicates schema info, and adds only minimal context that these are elements to select—essentially a rewording of the title 'Element Ids'. It fails to explain the nature of element IDs in the Revit domain.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Select elements in the Revit window.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_selection (which retrieves) and isolate_elements (which changes visibility). The added note about empty list clearing selection further clarifies scope.

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 usage is implied: use when needing to change the current selection. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate relative to sibling tools like isolate_elements or override_graphics.

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