Set property values

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (destructive, idempotent), while the description adds substantial behavior: per-element failures are reported and others continue, failure causes are unavailable-for-classification or read-only/calculated properties, and the whole batch is a single undo step. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the core action and scope, then packs format, units, failure behavior, and return shape into a compact block. It is dense but every clause carries information; the run-on structure slightly reduces readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ({results: [{property, guid, succeeded, failed?...}], succeeded, failed}), so an agent knows what success and partial failure look like. Combined with the failure-mode and undo-step disclosure, nothing critical 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 50%, and the description compensates by documenting unit conventions (m, m², m³, degrees, option sets by display value), reset/setUndefined semantics, elementDefaults usage, and built-in property naming (General_ElementID = Element ID). Most of this is reinforced or restated from the schema, so it adds meaning but not full independence.

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+resource ('Sets property values on many elements (and/or element tool defaults) in ONE undo step') and distinguishes itself from sibling readers/writers like get_property_values and set_tool_defaults by covering both elements and tool defaults in one call.

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 usage context (per-entry shape, batch semantics, one undo step) and routes to modify_property_definitions for the availability fix and get_property_definitions {search} for finding names. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as set_attribute_property_values, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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