set_workspace_selection

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behavioral traits: selecting nothing clears the selection, selection is not part of the workflow and thus not on the undo stack, and Ctrl+Z will not revert it. It also explains the 'add' parameter semantics and the default for 'centre,' providing a clear mental model of the tool's effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every paragraph earns its place: the rationale, the usage guidance, the behavioral caveats, and the parameter explanations are all relevant and non-redundant. The length is appropriate for a tool with five parameters and several subtleties.

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 description is complete for the tool's complexity: it covers purpose, usage timing, side effects, relationship to the undo stack, and parameter specifics. It even instructs on prerequisite actions like navigate_workspace. With an output schema present, explaining return values is unnecessary, and none of the important operational aspects are left ambiguous.

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?

The description includes an explicit 'Args' section that explains each of the five parameters beyond the bare schema. For 'nodes,' it adds critical details about IDs being local to the visible graph and dropping prefixes like '98:12' after navigating into a subgraph. It also clarifies the semantics of 'add' and 'centre' defaults, which the schema leaves ambiguous.

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 clear, specific purpose: 'Highlight nodes and groups on the canvas, so the user can see which ones you mean.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by calling it 'the write half of what get_workspace_graph reports as selected,' clarifying its role relative to a related read tool. The verb 'set' and resource 'workspace selection' are explicit.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it before an edit the user should agree to, and to answer "which ones?" without a list.' It also offers context on the read/write pairing with get_workspace_graph and advises calling navigate_workspace first for subgraphs. No alternatives are excluded, but the intended use cases are clearly delineated.

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