manage_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explains behaviors of many actions (e.g., set_relative uses add/subtract/multiply/divide or plain delta; set_calculated evaluates expressions with variables; modify_children sets props on matching children). However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing values), return formats, permissions, or error behavior, so transparency is partial.

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 a single long run-on sentence with a massive action list separated by commas and semicolons. It is not concisely structured; a bulleted list or shorter grouped summary would be easier for an agent to parse. While it is front-loaded with the main purpose, the dense enumeration hinders readability, making it less than minimally viable in this dimension.

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?

Given the tool's high complexity (16 parameters, 20+ actions, no output schema), the description is quite comprehensive. It covers all actions, highlights important aliases and parameter interactions, and explains nuanced behaviors for complex actions. It omits some details like return value structures or prerequisites, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool in many scenarios.

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 high (94%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining action enum meanings (set_many/set_multiple equivalence, set with properties map, set_relative operation, set_calculated variables, mass_set/mass_get, modify_children). This clarifies how parameters like 'properties', 'operation', and 'variables' integrate with actions, adding value beyond the 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 'Get/set properties, attributes and tags', which identifies the specific resource and actions. It distinguishes the tool from broader siblings like mutate_instances or query_instances by focusing on properties/attributes/tags, and enumerates concrete actions. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource focus: use this tool for properties, attributes, and tags. The action list gives some idea of when to choose specific actions (e.g., set_relative for math operations, set_calculated for expressions), but there is no explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' guidance or exclusions for sibling tools. No alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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