Set tool default settings

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

Annotations supply the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: fields apply independently, invalid fields land in 'rejected' without blocking others, geometry/identity fields are silently ignored, and it spells out the result shape. It does not explain the destructive implication of overwriting existing defaults or whether the change is undoable.

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 purpose, then an illustrative example, then failure semantics, then the output contract, then the follow-up tool — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is dense and some of the field detail duplicates the schema, costing a little tightness.

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 and no annotations covering return values, the description carries the full burden and does so: it documents the per-entry result keys (applied, ignored, rejected, settings, error), the independent-field failure mode, and the create_favorite follow-up. An agent has what it needs to call and interpret this.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema's 'fields' and 'variation' descriptions already carry the field-name/unit/per-type detail. The description's examples and notes largely restate that structured content, so it does not add much beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Changes the default settings of element tools') and immediately contrasts the write path with the read path via get_tool_defaults and the persistence path via create_favorite. An agent can distinguish this from create_elements or modify_elements without opening the schema.

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 a concrete usage scenario ('set the Wall tool to 3 m high ... before drawing many walls, or prepare settings the user will draw with'), which tells the agent when this tool applies. It also points to get_tool_defaults for discovery and create_favorite for saving, but never states when not to use it (e.g. one-off element creation should use create_* instead).

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