rhino_sel_invert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the core behavior, but does not disclose side effects or prerequisites, such as whether a current selection is required, what happens if nothing is selected, or that this only changes selection state and does not modify geometry. 'Using rhinoscriptsyntax' is an implementation note, not a behavior.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. The key action 'Invert the current selection' is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 zero-parameter, single-action tool, the description is nearly complete. It explains the core operation. Minor gaps exist around edge cases (empty selection, whether the operation is safe to run on all object types), but the simplicity of the tool means the description is adequate without those details.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description adds no parameter information and none is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Invert the current selection'. This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like rhino_sel_all or rhino_sel_none by describing the exact operation rather than just a 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?

The usage is implied: an agent would use this when it wants to invert the current selection. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, or how it compares to alternative selection tools such as rhino_sel_all or rhino_sel_by_type. The description gives no exclusions or alternative routing.

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