Set Entity Properties

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, and the description is consistent with them. The phrase 'one or more' adds partial-update context, but the description does not state whether omitted/null properties are preserved, or how invalid values or entities are handled.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains the verb, target, and complete property scope. There is no filler, redundancy, or restating of schema 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 focused property-update tool, the combination of description, 100% schema parameter documentation, and an output schema is sufficient for correct invocation. The main missing context is usage guidance and explicit no-change semantics for omitted properties, but these are relatively minor at this complexity level.

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 fully documented with details such as ACI color meanings and lineweight units. The description merely lists property names and adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('properties of an entity') and enumerates the exact property set: layer, color, linetype, lineweight, visibility. This distinguishes it from geometric editing siblings like entity_move, entity_scale, and entity_edit_geometry.

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 property list gives an implied use case: call this tool when modifying entity display/classification properties rather than geometry. However, it provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives, such as when to prefer entity_change_space, entity_edit_geometry, or layer_modify.

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