select_project_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers almost none of it: it does not say whether the selection replaces or adds to the current one, whether hidden/collapsed items can be selected, whether the panel is scrolled to reveal the items, or what is returned. Only the panel scoping ('Project panel') is conveyed.

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?

Six words, front-loaded, zero waste. It is short rather than concise-with-substance, but there is no structural bloat to penalize.

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?

A state-changing selection tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required array parameter. The description does not fill any of those gaps, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly without external guesswork.

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 0% for the single required parameter nodeIds, and the description never mentions it. An agent gets no hint that these are project item node IDs, nor where to obtain them (e.g. get_project_items or find_project_items).

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?

A specific verb plus resource: selecting items in the Project panel. That distinguishes it from timeline-oriented siblings like select_clips, but the description never states the distinction explicitly, and the relationship to get_project_panel_selection / deselect_all is left implicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, no mention of alternatives such as select_clips or deselect_all. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this replaces or extends an existing selection.

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