set_property

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the operation is a write, but omits behavior like overwrite behavior, validation rules, requirements (e.g., active note), or effects on existing properties. The optional file/path parameters are not explained.

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?

Two succinct sentences. The first clearly states the function; the second lists type options. No unnecessary words, but could be better structured (e.g., separate line for file/path).

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 no annotations and an output schema not shown, the description is incomplete. It does not cover side effects, return values, or how file/path default. The sibling tools are numerous, yet no comparison is provided. The note modification context is only partially addressed.

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 0%. The description explains `name`, `value`, and `type` (with examples), but completely omits `file` and `path`. This leaves two parameters undocumented, which is a significant gap.

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: setting a frontmatter property on a note, specifying the format `name`=`value` and listing valid types. It differentiates from siblings like read_property and remove_property.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it should be used over add_to_note or when not to use it. The sibling set includes many note tools, but no selection criteria are provided.

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