set_render_settings

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses pre-validation of key/value/parm writability, snapshoting old values, explicit restore on failure (not relying on undo), status codes for success, apply-failure with restore success, restore failure with 'restore_errors', and the response cap. This is exceptional transparency for a write tool.

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 dense but structured, with a leading summary phrase and clear bullet-like details about validation, restore behavior, status codes, and response cap. It avoids unnecessary filler and each sentence contributes meaningful information. It is slightly technical but appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral aspects including error handling, restored flags, and response cap. It does not provide parameter examples or detailed return structure beyond status codes, but for a write operation it is reasonably complete. The lack of parameter semantics is a gap, but the tool's core behavior is well explained.

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?

The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description mentions 'key/value/parm' which gives a hint that the 'parameters' object contains key-value pairs validated for writability, but it does not explain 'node_path' or the structure of 'parameters'. It adds some semantic about validation but is insufficient to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with "受限可撤销写入" (limited reversible write), indicating a write operation with rollback, and references the specific design.md section. While it doesn't explicitly say "sets render settings", the tool name and context make the resource clear. It distinguishes itself from generic set_parameters etc. by focusing on reversible write semantics, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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 the tool is for applying render settings with pre-validation and rollback, which suggests it should be used when reversible writes are needed. However, it never explicitly states when to use it or when to prefer alternatives like set_parameters. No exclusions are provided, so usage guidance is only implied.

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