set_property

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Changes are immediate but NOT saved to disk' discloses the ephemeral nature, and 'Requires run_interactive' identifies a precondition. While annotations indicate non-read-only, the description clarifies the exact scope of the side effect.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly communicates the core purpose in a compact form.

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 simple setter tool, the description is complete: it explains the action, the ephemeral behavior, the prerequisite, and the alternative for permanent changes. The schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema is needed for a void operation. The distinction from set_node_properties covers the main contextual gap.

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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Set a property on a live node at runtime.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool set_node_properties by emphasizing the runtime-only nature of the change.

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 provides explicit guidance: mention of 'use set_node_properties for permanent changes' names the alternative tool and clarifies when this tool is appropriate (temporary runtime changes). It also states the prerequisite 'Requires run_interactive,' giving context for invocation.

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