Get or Set Property

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

Substantial context beyond the annotations: values are always strings, a set returns 'OK' without read-back so a follow-up get is needed to confirm, changes live only in the IDE until save_project, and the Xojo IDE must be running with the project open. That is exactly the kind of side-effect, verification, and prerequisite information the annotations don't convey.

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?

Purpose comes first, then scope limits, then behavioral notes, then the prerequisite. Every sentence carries distinct information; the only near-duplication is the string-values note, which is minor and reinforces a frequently botched 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?

For a two-parameter getter/setter with no output schema, the description covers naming, value format, return behavior, persistence, and environment prerequisites. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and verify the result.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value with a third example ('App.SupportsDarkMode') and a negative name example ('Window1.PushButton1.Caption') that clarifies the naming grammar — something the schema's two examples don't establish on their own.

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?

A clear verb+resource pair ("gets or sets a FRAMEWORK property of a project item") followed by three concrete example property paths. The scope limit (framework properties, not user-added ones, not window controls) separates it cleanly from siblings like constant_value or set_code without needing the schema.

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?

It states the situation this tool is for ("the supported way to change app and build settings, which otherwise live in the .xojo_project file that must never be hand-edited") and names two exclusions. What's missing is direct sibling routing — it never says what to use for custom properties or control captions, leaving the agent to guess among the 30 siblings.

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