set_detail_attrib

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: mutating operation, single undo group, failure destroys half-finished work, does not call cooked node.geometry() write methods, and server-side response cap. This is rich, specific context beyond typical mutation tool descriptions.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary line followed by bullet points. Each sentence adds meaningful behavioral or parameter details, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complexity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers key operational context: mutation, undo grouping, failure cleanup, and accepted parameter values. However, it omits success return behavior and explicit explanations for several parameters, leaving minor gaps for a complete picture.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains attrib_type accepted values (float/int/string/vector) and implies name/value semantics as attribute name and value. However, other parameters like ctx, node_name, and node_path remain unexplained, leaving gaps.

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 tool creates an Attribute Create SOP with class=detail, identifying the specific node type and scope. This distinguishes it from generic node creation tools like create_node and create_wrangle, and the resource is clearly specified.

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 by naming the node type, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools like create_node or set_parameter are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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