select_entities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not disclose the key behavioral trait beyond those flags: whether selecting replaces or augments the current selection (the 'clear' parameter defaults to true, implying replacement), which matters for an agent chaining tools.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the qualifier in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted above.

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 state-mutating selection tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable but leaves gaps: no return/effect confirmation, no statement about whether the selection persists across tools, and no explanation of the 'clear' parameter's default behavior.

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 only 50%: entity_ids carries its own description, while 'clear' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds only 'by id', which merely restates the schema, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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?

Specific verb (select) plus resource (entities) and identifier basis (by id), scoped to SketchUp. It is distinguishable from the sibling selection_info (which reads rather than sets selection), though it never names that sibling as an alternative.

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 parenthetical gives a purpose context ('so the user can see them, or for later tools to use'), which implies when to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no mention of prerequisite id sources beyond the schema, and no exclusions.

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