create_named_selection

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

The [MODIFIES MODEL] prefix discloses that the tool mutates the model, which is important since annotations are absent. However, it does not explain whether existing selections are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or any other side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 fluff, and the [MODIFIES MODEL] tag is front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, making it efficient but under-specified.

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?

Given no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema whose contents are unknown, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It lacks parameter definitions, behavioral details, and any guidance on model state or error handling.

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 explain both parameters. It clarifies 'entity_ids' as IDs of geometry entities, but the 'name' parameter is not explained at all. The description only partially compensates for the missing 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 action (create), the resource (geometry named selection), and the input (entity IDs). It is specific and distinct from the sibling get_named_selections, which reads selections.

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 implies when to use this tool (for creating selections) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving some inference required.

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