set_magnets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'set' but does not disclose whether magnets are replaced or appended, any side effects, or permissions required. This leaves ambiguity about the mutation behavior.

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary and earned.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but missing context on whether magnets replace or add to existing ones, and whether the shape must exist. This gap reduces completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, with detailed examples for magnet positions. The tool description itself adds no extra semantic value beyond 'Set magnet points', so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 sets magnet points on a shape, which are attachment points for lines. It uses specific verb 'Set' and resource 'magnet points on a shape', distinguishing it from sibling tools like connect_shapes.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The purpose implies it is for defining attachment points before connecting lines, but alternatives are not mentioned.

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