set_statetree_schema

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It warns that existing nodes may become invalid, which is a key behavioral note. However, it omits other crucial traits such as whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or impact on compiled state trees. The warning is valuable but incomplete.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus param descriptions. The warning is front-loaded, and every word serves a purpose. No filler.

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?

Given the complexity of modifying a state tree schema, the description is adequate but could provide more context, such as possible schema_class values or effects on bindings/transitions. The presence of an output schema doesn't fully compensate for missing explanation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds needed context. It defines 'asset_path' as 'Content path to the StateTree asset' and 'schema_class' with an example ('MassStateTreeSchema'). This clarifies the parameters beyond the raw schema types.

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 'Change the schema of a StateTree' with a specific verb and resource. It warns about potential invalidation. While not highly elaborate, it effectively conveys the core function and distinguishes from siblings (e.g., set_statetree_state_property).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison to other state tree tools. The warning about invalidation implies care but does not constitute usage context.

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