set_properties

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 only states 'Set properties' but does not clarify whether existing properties are merged or replaced, what happens on invalid paths, or any side effects. This is a mutation tool with minimal behavioral context, similar to the 'update_drive' example which scored 2.

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 that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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, no output schema, and nested objects in the properties parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain the semantics of updating properties (merge vs. replace), behavior on errors, or what happens to unspecified properties. This leaves important gaps for the agent.

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 100% for both parameters (path and properties), so the schema already fully documents their semantics. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Set properties') and the target ('existing instance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_properties (read) and create_instance (create). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 'on an existing instance' implies this tool is for modifying already-created instances, which offers some usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives (e.g., get_properties for reading, create_instance for new) or provide exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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