select_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully implies default replace semantics versus additive selection ('Keep the current selection and add to it'), but does not disclose invalid-ID handling, whether selection is scoped by active document, or what happens on failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first line, followed by compact per-parameter notes. No filler, though the Args block is somewhat verbose for a two-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple two-parameter selection tool the description covers purpose and both parameters adequately, leaving only edge-case behavior unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does reasonably: it specifies item_ids are 'KIID strings' (a format hint beyond the bare array) and clarifies the semantic effect of add_to_existing. It does not fully specify KIID sourcing but covers both parameters meaningfully.

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 names a specific verb (select) and resource (board items) scoped to the PCB editor, so the agent immediately knows what it does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like get_selection or clear_selection, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as clear_selection or get_selection present in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage entirely from the verb.

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