physics.set

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a mutation action ('Set') but does not describe side effects, reversibility, error handling, or required permissions. The agent has no insight beyond the basic action, which is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action. It avoids unnecessary words and is easily parsed. However, it could be slightly expanded to include minimal parameter context without losing conciseness.

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 (4 required params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct RNA property paths, valid value formats, or constraints like matching type to object. The agent would need significant external knowledge to use this tool effectively.

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 input schema has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides no additional meaning: it does not explain that 'object' is the physics stack object, how to format 'property' as an RNA path, what the enum 'type' values correspond to, or that 'value' must be a JSON string. Minimal value added beyond raw 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 action ('Set one RNA property') and the target ('on a physics stack'). It uses specific verb-resource structure and distinguishes from sibling tools like physics.report (read) or physics.add (add new stack). The word 'one' implies a single property per call, which adds precision.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., physics.add for creating a stack, or physics.field_set for field properties). No prerequisites, conditions, or when-not-to-use information is given. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context.

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