Set Declaration

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: 'Every field is replaced, so pass the current values of those you are keeping', the 'OK: <location>' return value, the named error cases, and that the change stays in the IDE until save_project. That is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs before invoking a destructive mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the sibling relationship, and every sentence carries distinct information (semantics warning, replace-all behavior, return value, error cases, save requirement). It is dense but not padded; the packed NOTE sentence is the only mild readability cost.

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 six-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the return value, failure modes, persistence semantics, the create_project_item workflow, and the environment prerequisite. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantic disambiguation with the NOTE that `parameters` and `data_type` swap meaning between a method and a property — the most likely source of a mis-call. It reinforces rather than merely repeats 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?

States a specific verb (Sets) and the exact resource (name, type, scope, parameters of the current method or property) in the Xojo IDE. It also positions itself relative to create_project_item, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like set_code or create_project_item without opening a 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?

Gives clear context: it is the second half of the create_project_item flow ('DoCommand "NewProperty" creates a blank, untyped property, and this is what names and types it'), and it names a hard exclusion (constants or other item kinds are refused) plus the prerequisite that the Xojo IDE must be running with the project open. It does not explicitly route to a sibling for the 'change existing code' case, keeping it just short of a 5.

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