Set property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses SI-only numeric values, failure recovery steps, layout restrictions after simulation, and the side effect that setting ``name`` affects later object_action select calls. It does not discuss permissions, reversibility, or whether setting overwrites existing values, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by operational guidance and recovery steps in a compact sequence. Every sentence carries useful information about invocation, failure handling, or follow-up behavior, with no filler.

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 no annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key invocation context: exact property names, SI units, selection behavior, design-layout failure recovery, and name persistence. It is nearly complete, though it leaves out permission or reversibility details for a mutating tool.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the optional selection index and value formatting. The description reinforces SI-only numbers and exact property names, but adds little beyond the structured schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource: setting one property on the currently selected object(s). It also distinguishes this from related operations by mentioning object_action select and get_info for property lookup, so an agent can tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: call directly when the exact SimWorks property name is known, use get_info on failure, retry only the failed property, and switch to design layout when a design-layout/inactive error occurs. These are concrete when-to-use and recovery instructions rather than implied context.

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