props_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a specific prop' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if changes are reversible, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple update operation and front-loads the key action. Every word earns its place, making it easy 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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'prop' is, the expected format of 'prop' data, or what the tool returns. With 2 parameters and nested objects, more context is needed for effective use, especially without annotations to cover safety or behavioral aspects.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'prop'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'id' identifies the prop to update and 'prop' contains the new data. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Update a specific prop' clearly states the action (update) and resource (prop), but it's vague about what a 'prop' is in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'props_get', 'props_delete', or 'props_trigger'. While it identifies the basic operation, it lacks specificity about the domain or how it differs from related operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing prop ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'props_set_collection' or 'props_create_collection'. Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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