modifier.set_state

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

Annotations already convey destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds the 'absolute' set semantics and transaction scope, but it does not explain failure conditions around expected identity/generation, null flag behavior, or interaction with the active transaction.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, naming the operation, target, flag type, and required transaction 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?

Even though an output schema exists and covers return values, this is a complex 9-parameter mutation with 7 required fields and identity/idempotency concepts. The description leaves most parameter semantics and behavioral constraints unexplained, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 for all 9 parameters. It only hints at show_viewport and show_render through 'viewport/render' and at identity checks through 'one exact modifier'; the required transaction_id, object_name, modifier_name, expected_* fields, and idempotency_key are left unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and clearly identifies the resource: absolute viewport and/or render enable flags for one exact modifier within the active transaction. This distinguishes it from related visibility, material, and transform tools in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'inside the active transaction' conveys a key usage context, and 'one exact modifier' implies the tool operates on a single, precisely identified modifier. It does not name alternatives, but no direct modifier-state sibling exists, so explicit exclusions are not essential here.

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