Set Parameter Values

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals atomicity via 'one undo group', the auto-coercion of number lists into c4d.Vector, pre-write validation of link targets and destination types, and the exact return shape with applied and errors arrays. This goes far beyond a terse 'set parameters' statement and gives the agent a clear model of side effects and failure handling.

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?

Four dense sentences with no filler; each sentence earns its place by covering a distinct requirement: the operation, path/value format, coercion, link handling, validation, and return contract. The core write action is front-loaded, and edge cases are compactly grouped afterward.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating the return shape '{applied: [{path, value}], errors: [{path, error}]}'. It also covers undo grouping, vector coercion, link clearing, pre-validation, and the need to inspect errors, while the schema's handle union supplies the entity-targeting detail. No essential calling information is missing for an agent.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful interpretative value by giving a concrete path example ([903, 'x'] = position.x), explaining vector coercion, and specifying the {link: handle} syntax for DTYPE_BASELISTLINK parameters. These details clarify the intended semantics beyond what raw JSON Schema types alone convey.

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 'Write parameter values in one undo group,' a specific verb+resource pairing that clearly identifies the operation. It is distinct from read-oriented siblings like get_params and describe, though it does not explicitly name write-oriented alternatives such as set_transform or set_keyframe.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or references to alternatives, so an agent must infer when set_params is appropriate versus sibling write tools. The conditional note about DTYPE_BASELISTLINK parameters is an internal formatting rule, not a selection guideline. It lacks even implicit routing such as 'use this for generic parameters, use set_transform for transforms.'

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