aia_set_property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal value type constraints and screen-versus-component targeting, but it never states whether the .aia file is mutated in place, whether properties are overwritten, what happens for invalid prop names, or what the operation 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that leads with the primary action and then adds the most important usage nuance (screen vs. component). Every clause adds information without excessive length.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what prop names are supported, how to specify a screen, whether the file is modified on disk, or what errors are likely — so an agent may invoke the tool incorrectly.

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 only 20%, and the description compensates for very little. It clarifies component_name by saying to omit it for the screen itself, but it does not explain prop, screen_name, or the path beyond schema type info. The value-type mention duplicates the schema's anyOf constraint.

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 identifies the action as setting one property on a screen or component, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like aia_set_blocks. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation targets an .aia file or contrast with related mutations, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explains a key internal usage rule — omit component_name to target the screen — but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like aia_set_blocks or aia_add_component. No exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are stated.

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