Set an object property

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the critical trait that the operation 'modifies the show file' and that values are supplied as editor-typed text. It omits error behavior, whether changes are undoable, permission requirements, and how invalid property names or values are handled.

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, with examples carrying the detail efficiently. Little waste, though the sentence about values-as-text and the mutation note could be tightened.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, mechanism, and arg examples, but leaves gaps on error behavior, permission needs, and differentiation from sibling setters that a fully complete definition would address.

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 only 33% (only 'ref' is documented), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it clarifies that 'value' is passed as text exactly as typed in the editor and supplies representative property names ('Name', 'Tracking', 'TrigTime'). It adds real meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't enumerate valid property strings comprehensively.

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 a property of a show object) and grounds it in the Lua Set() API with concrete examples like 'Sequence 1'/'Name' and 'Sequence 1 Cue 2'/'TrigTime'. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as gma3_set_attribute, gma3_set_color, gma3_set_cue_timing, or gma3_patch_set, so the agent can't easily tell which setter to reach for.

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?

Provides usage examples of property/ref pairs but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and names no alternative setter. The agent gets no rule for choosing this generic setter over the many specialized set_* siblings.

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