set_resource

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key behavioral trait 'undoable', which is beyond what annotations provide. It also implies the parameters 'resource' and 'class' are mutually exclusive, though not explicitly stated. Overall, it adds useful behavioral context.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and undoability before explaining parameter usage and providing an example. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the main functional aspects: what the tool does, how to use the two parameter modes, and that the operation is undoable. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tool 'set_property' and does not describe error conditions or the return value. Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately supports the agent in understanding the tool's primary use, though some gaps remain.

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 covers only 50% of parameters with descriptions (class and resource). The description compensates by explaining that 'resource' is a res:// path and 'class' is for instantiating a subclass inline. It also clarifies 'target' and 'property' through examples: 'set Sprite2D.texture' implying target is a node and property is a property name. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Assign a resource to a node's property (undoable).' It specifically names the operation as setting a resource, differentiating from sibling tools like 'set_property' which is for general property setting. The inclusion of examples (Sprite2D.texture, RectangleShape2D) further clarifies the resource-focused purpose.

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 description explains how to use the tool via 'resource' or 'class' parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_property'. There is no mention of when not to use it or scenarios where a different tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name.

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