Set generator

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and "swap" is consistent with a non-destructive, idempotent mutation. Beyond that the description adds little: it does not say what happens to an existing generator, whether invalid type ids error, or what the call returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the illustrative examples are placed where they are most useful. Minor redundancy between "swap" and "set" keeps it short of perfect.

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?

For a simple 3-param idempotent setter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits error behavior for unknown generator ids and any hint about reusing the layer's existing generator/attribute slot.

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 100%, so layerId and type are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description's value examples reinforce the type parameter but add no semantics beyond the schema, and it says nothing about attrId.

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 gives a specific verb ("swap"/"set") and resource (the generator on a layer), plus concrete examples ("circleDistribution", "ellipse") that make the intent unmistakable. It does not, however, distinguish this specialized setter from the sibling cavalry_set_attributes, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied through the examples (a Duplicator's generator vs a Basic Shape's generator), which hints at applicable layer types, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of cavalry_set_attributes as the general alternative.

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