set_selection

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: replacing the selection, showing items in the inspector, highlighting in the viewport/tree, and clearing the selection with an empty ids array. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the visible effects, parameter conventions, and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the action, effect, parameter semantics, clearing behavior, and the key sibling alternatives, giving an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description reinforces the type-to-id mapping and empty-array clearing behavior, but it largely restates what the schema already provides rather than adding new semantic depth.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Replace the editor's selection with the given entities or assets.' It also clarifies the observable effect (showing in inspector, highlighting in viewport/tree) and distinguishes itself from related selection operations by name.

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 guidance is explicit and actionable: it states when not to use the tool, naming modify_entities for modifying selected items and focus_viewport for framing them. It also explains the type-specific id formats and the empty-array behavior for clearing selection.

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