batch_set_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the action but omits details like side effects, whether changes are reversible, required permissions, or any return value. For a batch mutation tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 directly states the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly longer to include necessary context (e.g., scope of nodes affected), but overall it is concise without waste.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, and the complexity of a batch operation affecting all nodes of a type, the description lacks completeness. It does not clarify whether the operation applies to the current scene or all scenes, nor does it mention potential performance implications or error conditions.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., value is 'Property value'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Set'), the resource ('property'), and the scope ('on all nodes of a given type'). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'batch_get_properties' (get vs set) and 'set_game_node_property' (single node vs all nodes of a type).

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 description implies when to use (when needing to set a property on multiple nodes of the same type) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or suggest alternative tools for setting properties on individual nodes or across different types.

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