set_resource

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds the behavioral note that the operation is 'undoable' and clarifies that it can either load an existing resource or mint a new inline sub-resource. This provides useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 main purpose, followed by parameter guidance and examples in just two sentences. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description covers key aspects: the two distinct modes, examples, and the undoability. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could be slightly more explicit about mutual exclusivity or required parameter formats.

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 description compensates for the 50% schema coverage by explaining the relationship between 'resource' and 'class' (OR) and providing concrete examples. It implicitly clarifies that 'target' is a node and 'property' is a property name, though not explicitly, which adds value 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 'Assign a resource to a node's property' with specific verb and resource, and differentiates from siblings like set_property and create_resource by focusing on resource assignment. The examples further clarify the intended use.

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 provides context via examples (e.g., setting Sprite2D.texture or RectangleShape2D) and explains the two parameter modes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or list exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with sibling tools.

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