xae_tree_set_values

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

Annotations already declare this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the unit semantics of the value (100 ns), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about persistence, whether unlisted elements are preserved, or the required connection state — a notable gap for a mutation.

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?

One sentence plus an inline example, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the concrete format. Nothing is wasted.

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?

The output schema means return values need no explanation, and the value format is conveyed. However, for a mutation tool with a required `path` parameter at 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the anchor of the XPath (which tree item, which document) unexplained.

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 carries the burden. It does document the `assignments` shape well via the example (relative XPath key → string value), but the required `path` parameter — what path, relative to which tree item — is never explained in either place.

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?

Specific verb+resource: sets element texts inside a tree item's XML via relative XPath, which is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings (xae_tree_get, xae_tree_consume_xml) and the structural siblings (xae_tree_create_child, xae_tree_delete). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it is clear but not self-differentiating.

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 example shows how to call it but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must a solution/project be attached?), and no pointer to the sibling to use for reading or bulk-consuming XML instead. Usage must be inferred.

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