mod_set_sub_object_selection

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'set' action is consistent with that. The description adds context about what is being set (level and selection) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether existing selections are replaced, what happens if the modifier doesn't support sub-object selection, or any return value. Given annotation coverage, the description provides modest extra value.

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 not overly long, but it contains near-duplicate content in Chinese and English, which adds redundancy. The key information (subject, action, examples) is front-loaded, but the bilingual duplication means not every sentence earns its place in terms of unique information.

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 explains the core purpose and gives typical usage examples, but it does not mention return values, error conditions, or behavior when parameters are omitted. Since there is no output schema, the description could have compensated by stating what the tool returns or what side effects occur, but it remains silent on those aspects. Overall it is adequate for a simple mutation tool but not exhaustive.

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 100% and each parameter already has a bilingual description. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the concept of level and selection. Since the schema carries the full parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('set') and resource (a modifier's sub-object level and selection), and gives concrete use cases (FFD control points, Edit Poly sub-objects). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mod_set_param or poly_select_faces, but the focus on 'modifier' makes the scope evident.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a modifier requires sub-element selection, with specific examples (FFD, Edit Poly). It does not state exclusions or name alternative tools, but the typical use case is communicated well enough for an agent to make a reasonable choice.

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