set_detail_attrib

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (set) but does not reveal whether the attribute is created if missing, whether it modifies the node's underlying geometry or just the current cook, or any side effects like re-cooking. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and readable, though it could have expanded to include parameter details without becoming bloated.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. It lacks context about return values, error conditions, how the node path is interpreted, and whether the attribute must exist beforehand. The description is minimally viable but clearly incomplete.

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 gives some implicit context (e.g., 'attribute value' hints at 'value' parameter, 'on geometry' hints at 'node_path'), but it does not explicitly explain each parameter's meaning or format. The schema titles are minimal, and the description adds little beyond what they already show.

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 identifies a clear resource ('detail (global) attribute value on geometry'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_parameter or get_attrib_values, as it targets geometry detail attributes specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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