set_properties

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

The only behavioral hint is 'Empty string = unchanged,' which explains the effect of empty input. However, no annotations exist, and the description omits details on whether properties are overwritten or merged, error conditions, or permission requirements.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It could be restructured to front-load key behavioral info, but currently it's brief but not optimally helpful.

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 has 5 parameters and no required ones, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on how properties are updated (e.g., does it replace all or only provided?), return values, and error handling, which are essential for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning that empty strings mean no change, but does not explain the role of each parameter (title, creator, etc.) beyond their schema names.

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') and resource ('core document properties'), which is a verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_custom_property' by specifying 'core', but lacks explicit differentiation from other setters like 'set_document_protection'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use set_custom_property or update_style. There are no context cues for prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.

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