set_eqs_generator_properties

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=true, not readOnly). The description adds real behavioral context — the reflection mechanism (mcp_common::SetObjectProperty) and per-property success/failure reporting — but does not explain what the destructive flag actually affects, such as whether unlisted existing generator properties are preserved or reset.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and mechanism, then the value-format rubric, then the return shape. Two dense paragraphs with no filler, though the first sentence packs the reflection call name which is marginal for tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description documents the return object fields (set, failed with errors, applied values), which is exactly what an agent needs. Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the definition is nearly complete; only preconditions for the target generator are unstated.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuinely new meaning the schema lacks: concrete value formats for property classes (a class path string for SearchedActorClass/SearchCenter, and {"DefaultValue": <n>} for FAIDataProvider*Value props). This compensates for the schema's generic 'JSON object { PropertyName: value }' wording.

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?

States a specific verb ('sets properties') on a specific resource ('an option's generator'), which the name reinforces. It is distinguishable from EQS siblings like add_eqs_generator, remove_eqs_generator, and set_eqs_test_scoring by naming the generator as the target, though it never explicitly routes the agent away from those neighbors.

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 explains value formats but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites apply (e.g., the generator must already exist via add_eqs_generator), or what conditions favor it over set_eqs_test_scoring. Usage is only implied by the mechanism description.

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