Set per-object config

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

Beyond the basic annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false), the description discloses atomicity ('nothing applied if any key is invalid') and a prerequisite ('[needs M4c]'), providing valuable behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence defining the action plus an example and an atomicity note. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core action, atomicity, and a prerequisite. Given the tool's simplicity (two params, no output schema), this is sufficient, though it omits response details and object existence checks.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates with an example illustrating the 'changes' format (e.g., wall_loops as integer, sparse_infill_density as string). It does not enumerate valid keys, but the example adds significant meaning.

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 ('Set') and resource ('per-object config overrides on an object by id'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool set_config for global saves. The example further clarifies the action.

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 'per-object config overrides' clearly signals when to use it (per-object, not global) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Context is clear, so this is a high score.

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