select_objects

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is flagged. The description adds behavioral detail by defining what each mode does to the current selection, especially that replace swaps the selection and subtract removes objects. This is genuinely useful context beyond the structured annotations.

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 very short and front-loads the core behavior and modes. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant but does not hurt usability.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operation well. However, it never explains what happens when the optional objects array is omitted, which matters for modes like replace or invert. This ambiguity leaves an agent guessing about valid no-argument invocations.

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 parameters are already documented. The description restates the mode enum but adds little beyond the schema, and the objects parameter is only explained as 'object name list' in the schema without clarifying behavior when omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the meaning.

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 the tool's action ('Select objects') and enumerates the four modes (replace/add/subtract/invert), which distinguishes it from simpler selection tools like select_all or select_by_superclass. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the mode list provides enough specificity to identify what this tool uniquely does.

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 mode definitions imply usage contexts (replace, add, subtract, invert), but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of get_selection, deselect_all, select_all, or select_by_superclass. An agent could infer that this tool modifies the current selection, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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