set_block_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a precondition (properties must be defined on tag/class) but does not explain side effects like whether existing properties are overwritten, error handling, or return values. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, adding a constraint, and providing a usage example. There is no redundant or unnecessary text.

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 simple set operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, a key constraint, and a formatting guideline. It could be improved by clarifying whether properties are merged or replaced, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that property names must be display names (not internal identifiers) and that properties must be defined on the block's tag/class, which is a critical constraint not evident from the schema alone.

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 identifies the action (set properties), the target (a block in Logseq DB-mode), and adds specificity with constraints on property definitions and display names, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_block.

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 clear context on how to use the tool (use display names, properties must be defined on tag/class), but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. A sibling like update_block exists but no differentiation is given.

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