set_property

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the crucial plan mode behavior (no changes without confirm=true) and the CTB-based thickness logic. However, it doesn't mention side effects of confirm=true, prerequisites like layer creation, or other behavioral traits such as whether changes are reversible.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, plan behavior, and a domain-specific tip. Each sentence earns its place; the description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 complex 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description captures core behavior and the plan mode, but lacks details on what 'matcheen' means (matching criteria) and the create_layer parameter behavior. The output schema covers return values, so that part is not needed.

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 description adds meaning for 'property' by listing allowed values (color, layer, linetype, lineweight, linetypescale, visible) and for 'confirm' by explaining its effect. With 0% schema coverage, this is valuable but leaves many parameters (type, block, handles, create_layer) unexplained, so the description only partially compensates.

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 changes a property (color, layer, linetype, lineweight, linetypescale, visible) on matching entities, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from geometry-focused siblings like transform_entities by specifying property types.

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 provides explicit usage context for the confirm flag: without confirm=true, it returns a PLAN with affected_count and makes no changes. It also gives a domain-specific guideline for Azcuy thickness hierarchy (use COLOR, not lineweight), which helps in a specific scenario. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools.

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