set_property

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent already knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable context by noting the operation is 'undoable' and detailing value coercion for vectors. This goes beyond the annotations and helps anticipate 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose immediately, and the second provides essential coercion detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 setter with three required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, undoability, and value coercion. It lacks explicit return-value information, but with no output schema that is acceptable. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though 'resolved object' could be more explicitly defined.

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 schema only describes 'value' as any JSON value, leaving target and property undocumented. The description partially compensates by explaining that the target is a resolved object and providing coercion rules for values. However, it does not clarify the expected format of the property parameter, leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'property on a resolved object', which identifies a specific operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_project_setting or set_resource by focusing on object properties. The phrase 'resolved object' is specific enough for the Godot context.

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?

The context is clear: use this tool when you need to set a property on a resolved object. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the mention of 'resolved object' and value coercion implies the intended use case. This is strong implied guidance, though not as explicit as naming alternatives.

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