set_anchors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behaviors: anchors persist with the document, follow Placement moves, coord_frame conversion logic, replace semantics, screenshot default, and that it records a modeling-session step. This goes beyond a simple 'what it does' and helps the agent predict side effects. Minor gaps remain, such as not detailing merge behavior when replace=false, but the parameter description covers this adequately.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, followed by key context, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition. It front-loads the core function and organizes details logically, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, nested objects, enum, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, returns, and important behavioral context, leaving little ambiguity. The only minor omission is explicit guidance on which sibling tools to use in complementary situations, but the description remains sufficient for correct 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 explain parameters. It does so via an Args section that describes the anchors format with pos and dir, the replace flag, coord_frame values with conversion guidance, and the with_screenshot default. It misses doc_name and obj_name, but these are self-explanatory given the tool name and required context. The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's function: 'Define explicit named anchors on an object.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_anchors (retrieve anchors) and align_shapes (geometry alignment). No ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool, such as 'use it whenever your source coordinates are global' for coord_frame. It also mentions that anchors persist and follow Placement moves, implying usage in modeling or assembly workflows. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_anchors for reading anchors.

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