set_statetree_state_property

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It simply says 'Set', which implies modification but lacks detail on impact or reversibility.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then lists parameters in a docstring format. While informative, the 'Args' section is somewhat redundant with the input schema and could be more concise. The description has 5 lines of parameter details, which are mostly repetitions of schema names.

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 (6 parameters, 3 required) and no output schema details in the context, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, making it less complete for an agent without external knowledge.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'asset_path: Content path to the StateTree asset', 'property_name: Property to set'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's name and type alone. However, the three state identifiers (state, state_name, state_guid) could be clarified further.

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 'Set a property on a state' and lists example property names (Name, Type, SelectionBehavior, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_statetree_state or set_statetree_node_property. The verb 'Set' and resource 'state property' are specific.

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 (e.g., set_statetree_node_property for node-level properties). No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description implies use when modifying a state property, but lacks explicit context.

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