set_relative_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It indicates mutation ('Modify') but does not describe side effects, error handling, reversibility, or how operations apply across multiple paths. This is a notable gap for a modification tool, as the agent is left unaware of potential impacts.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently, earning its place as a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has a moderate parameter count, no output schema, and several sibling tools. The description plus schema provide the basics, but the lack of guidance on return values, error behavior, and usage context relative to siblings leaves gaps in completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, including enum details for operation and component. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the schema already handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Modify properties relative to their current values' clearly states the action (modify properties) and the distinctive scope (relative adjustment), which differentiates it from siblings like set_property and set_calculated_property. While concise, it effectively communicates the core purpose without being a tautology.

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 implies usage for relative modifications, suggesting when an agent should choose this over absolute set_property. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it reference alternative tools, leaving room for confusion among the many sibling tools.

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