set_expression

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Set an expression' but does not indicate whether it overwrites an existing expression, requires an existing property, or how invalid expressions are handled. It also fails to mention the way the target is identified (via comp/layer parameters).

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 short sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently detailed. It earns a 3 because it is not overly verbose but lacks substance.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to specify the target property, whether the expression replaces or appends, or what errors might occur. The description provides only a minimal hint of functionality.

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?

Only 17% of the schema is described (just the 'expression' field has a description). The description adds no extra meaning for the other parameters—compId, compName, property, layerName, layerIndex—and does not clarify how they are used together. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Set an expression') and the resource ('a property'), which is specific and differentiates it from siblings like get_expression and remove_expression. It is unambiguous and concise.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as enable_expression, add_expression_control, or apply_expression_template. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or complementary tools.

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