set_fill_anchor_source

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 implies mutation via 'Connect' but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing fill source connections.

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 no wasted text and the operation is front-loaded. It is concise, though its terseness contributes to the missing usage and parameter detail elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage across four parameters, the description is far too incomplete to guide 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% for four parameters. The description loosely maps to 'channel' and 'material_mode' by mentioning one Fill channel versus the complete material source, but it does not explain the required uid, anchor_uid, or how those parameters interact.

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?

States a specific operation: connecting an Anchor Point to a Fill channel or the complete material source. This is more than a tautology and is distinguishable from read-only sibling tools like list_anchor_points and get_fill_sources, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or fully clarify what 'uid' identifies.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fill_resource, set_fill_channels, or set_fill_projection. It implies a usage context from the operation itself, but provides no explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisites.

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