set_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool mutates BIM properties, that heights and sills are expressed in millimeters, and that height/sill changes require regenerating the 3D model via create_walls_3d. This goes beyond the bare 'change' semantics and helps the agent anticipate downstream effects.

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?

Three short sentences deliver all essential information: target objects, editable properties, units, and the required follow-up action. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter tool with a generic properties object, the description covers the key decision points: which elements can be edited, which fields are accepted, unit conventions, and the need to regenerate 3D walls after dimensional changes. The missing behavior around invalid names or unknown property keys is a minor gap, and the output schema helps cover return expectations.

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 schema provides no descriptions and the properties parameter is an untyped object with additionalProperties, giving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates well by listing the valid property keys per target type (mark, height, sill, material, description for doors/windows; name, usage, floor_finish, description for room labels). It could be even stronger with value type constraints, but it gives the agent a working vocabulary for the tool.

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 an explicit verb ('Change'), specific resources (door/window block or room label), and enumerates the exact properties that can be set. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like set_wall_type, which target wall types rather than BIM elements or labels.

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?

The description gives clear context about what the tool is for and provides a concrete follow-up instruction: after changing height or sill, call create_walls_3d again to update the 3D model. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend an alternative, but its scope is well defined by the listed target objects and properties.

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