set_object_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it supports wildcard '*' for batch operations, returns a structured dict with success status and modified objects list, and specifies value formats for different property types (numeric, boolean, color). It doesn't mention error handling or permission requirements, but covers essential operational traits.

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 appropriately sized but not optimally structured: it front-loads the purpose, but includes extensive examples and parameter details mixed together. While all content is valuable, it could be more streamlined with clearer separation between conceptual explanation and implementation details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains what the tool does, how to use parameters, common property examples, return format details, and multiple usage scenarios. This compensates fully for the lack of structured metadata.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters in detail: 'object_name' supports wildcards for batch setting, 'property_name' includes common examples with specific usage notes (e.g., 'wirecolor' for color), and 'property_value' provides format rules for different data types. It adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('设置' meaning 'set'), the target resource ('3ds Max 场景中指定物体的属性值' meaning 'property values of specified objects in 3ds Max scene'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_object_properties' (read vs write) and 'set_object_transform' (properties vs transform). It provides a precise verb+resource combination.

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 implies usage context through examples and property lists (e.g., setting display properties like wirecolor or creation parameters like radius). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_object_transform' for position/rotation or 'assign_material' for material assignment, leaving some ambiguity about property scope boundaries.

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