femm_set_segment_prop

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses nearest-match targeting and value conventions (''=none for boundary, None=automatic for mesh_size), but omits whether this mutates existing geometry, requires prior selection, or persists across sessions.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and targeting behavior before enumerating field meanings. Every clause carries information, though the packed parentheticals make it slightly hard to scan.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers field meanings but leaves the 'session' parameter and mutation/persistence semantics unexplained. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining 6 of 7 parameters: points (nearest-segment targeting), boundary, mesh_size, hide flag, group, and conductor. Only the 'session' parameter is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('set segment properties') and clarifies the targeting mechanism ('select the segments nearest each of points'). This distinguishes it from siblings like femm_set_arc_prop and femm_set_node_prop by naming the segment target, though it never explicitly contrasts with 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The parenthetical '(e.g. midpoints)' hints at how points are chosen, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this tool over femm_set_arc_prop, femm_set_node_prop, or a direct selection/modify workflow.

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