set_task_property

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: it defines idempotency concretely ('returns set:true, value_changed:false') and publishes the response shape even though there is no output schema. It does not, however, explain the destructiveHint (e.g. overwriting an existing value) or failure modes such as an unknown property name or an unsupported JSON type.

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?

Purpose and the idempotency contract are front-loaded in the first two sentences, which is exactly the right ordering. The trailing 'Returns: {...}' field list is useful but reads as a raw field dump; a compact one-line summary would earn the same value with less noise.

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?

With no output schema and five required parameters, the description correctly compensates by disclosing the return object's fields and the idempotency contract, and the schema fully documents the inputs. Remaining gaps are the destructiveHint's meaning and error behavior on invalid property names or type mismatches, which matter for a mutation tool.

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 all five parameters are already documented (property as an FProperty name, task_index as 0-based, etc.), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds only marginal meaning by noting the value is applied reflectively through FJsonObjectConverter::JsonValueToFProperty, hinting at accepted types already stated in 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Set a single field of a task instance') and locates it precisely via the schema's tree_path/state_name/task_index addressing, which separates it from sibling setters such as set_condition_property and set_evaluator_property. An agent can identify the exact target object without opening another tool.

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 'set a single field of a task instance', and the idempotency note tells the agent that repeat calls are safe, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. vs. set_condition_property / set_evaluator_property / bulk property setters). The agent must infer the routing from the resource noun alone.

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