daz_set_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it works for transforms, morphs, and other numeric dials, specifies units (cm, degrees, 0-1), and describes the return structure. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it creates animation keys) or error conditions, and does not state that it mutates state.

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 compact and well-structured, with a brief summary, a clarifying paragraph on units, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 low complexity (3 simple parameters, no nested objects), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, units, and return values. It could be improved by mentioning how to handle errors or case sensitivity of property names, but it is largely complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a detailed docstring for each parameter: node_label (display or internal name), property_name (display or internal name), and value (new numeric value). This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the minimal schema types.

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 it sets a numeric property on a scene node, listing examples (transforms, morphs) and distinguishes from sibling 'daz_batch_set_properties' by focusing on single property setting. The main verb 'Set' is specific and the resource 'numeric property on a scene node' is precise.

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 when to use it (setting numeric properties) and explicitly recommends using daz_get_node first to discover property names. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools like daz_batch_set_properties for multiple properties, though the sibling list implies that distinction.

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