set_entity_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool writes the file, triggers an automatic TrenchBroom-HL reload, and has a specific conflict behavior with unsaved edits. This is significant and useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second delivers the most important behavioral warning. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the critical side effects: file writing, reload behavior, and handling of unsaved edits. It does not explain return/error behavior or fully define index semantics, but the schema and sibling tool context cover most operational needs.

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 75%, with set, remove, and map_path already documented. The description adds the context of targeting an existing entity and writing the file, but it does not clarify how index identifies the entity or provide additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set and/or remove properties on an existing entity.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_entity, delete_entity, and get_entity, and the 'existing entity' qualifier adds important scope.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when modifying properties of an existing entity, versus adding or deleting entities. However, the description does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when a different tool such as get_entity or add_entity would be more appropriate.

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