object_set_val

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal one genuinely useful trait: behavior is object-type dependent, with minvalmax scoped to parameters and msb/force scoped to datasets. But it omits critical mutation facts such as whether the target object must pre-exist, what happens on invalid paths or values, the meaning of force, and whether the operation can overwrite read-only objects.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero waste. Every clause earns its place, and the type-scoping information is delivered economically without repeating anything already in the schema.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. It lacks path format guidance, failure behavior, return value expectations, and routing logic among the dozens of setter siblings. The type-behavior note shows the author understood the key scoping issue but left an agent guessing about force semantics, object existence requirements, and which sibling tools this supersedes.

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 low (33%), so the description must compensate, and it partially does by mapping minvalmax to parameters and msb/force to datasets. This helps an agent understand when those optional parameters are relevant. However, it stops short of explaining the semantics of their values (what 'Opt Min' means, what M/S/B encodes, what force actually does), leaving meaning gaps for four undocumented parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Set the value of an IC-CAP object') that clearly identifies the core action. The second sentence adds type-scoped detail (minvalmax for parameters, msb/force for datasets), giving the tool a distinct identity among the sibling tools. However, it never contrasts itself with the many type-specific setters (mpar_set, dvar_set, svar_set, etc.), so a generic agent can't tell when this universal setter is preferred over them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance relative to the roughly 20 sibling setter tools, and no exclusion criteria or alternatives are named. The description states broad applicability ('an IC-CAP object') but doesn't explain when to choose this over type-specific setters or object_create. The only useful routing hint ('Specify the exact IC-CAP type when a path can name more than one object') lives in the schema, not the description.

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