Set parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that only whitelisted properties are allowed, values must be positive millimetres, and the document is exclusively locked during the operation. It still omits permission requirements and error behavior, but the mutation and locking behavior are clearly surfaced.

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 front-loaded, appropriately short, and structured around the core operation, whitelist, value constraint, and locking behavior. Every sentence contributes useful invocation context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, it covers the critical preconditions: existing document/object, whitelisted property, positive millimetre value, and exclusive locking. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the main remaining gap is the optional workspace parameter.

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 description adds useful meaning for property_name via the Box/Cylinder whitelist and for value via the positive-millimetres constraint. However, with reported schema coverage at 0%, it does not compensate for all parameters because the optional workspace parameter is not explained in the description.

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 and resource: changing a whitelisted parameter on an existing object. It clearly distinguishes modification from sibling creation tools by specifying an existing object, though it does not explicitly 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?

Implies when to use it by saying it changes whitelisted parameters on existing objects and lists the eligible Box/Cylinder properties. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or direct routing versus siblings like inspect_object, validate_document, or create_box.

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