set_calculated_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention that it can modify multiple paths, effect of formula evaluation, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and free of waste. It earns a high score for brevity, though it lacks a structured breakdown of components.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and ambiguous relationship to similar tools, the description is too thin. It fails to mention that it operates on multiple paths, what the formula variables can do, return behavior, or how it relates to set_property and mass_set_property.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions 'mathematical formulas' and 'variables' which aligns with the formula and variables parameters, but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. No extra semantics are provided.

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 tool's function: setting properties using mathematical formulas and variables. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_property or mass_set_property by specifically mentioning formulas and variables, though it could be more explicit about 'calculated' or 'computed' properties.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_property, mass_set_property, or set_relative_property. The description lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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