set_component_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds useful context: all distances are in millimeters regardless of document units, dry_run previews without writing, and expected_sha256 must match when committing. It does not disclose effects on locked components or whether all properties are overwritten or only provided ones, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 sentences with clear front-loading. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides units and the dry-run workflow. No wasted words, though the input schema reference is somewhat redundant.

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?

The tool is complex (10 parameters, safety workflow, units quirk). The description covers the key safety flow (dry_run, expected_sha256) and units, but omits selector semantics, allow_locked behavior, and relationship to transactions/siblings. Given output schema exists, return values need no explanation, but gaps remain for full completeness.

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?

The description maps several parameters organically ('RefDes, name, value or custom fields' maps to refdes, name, value, fields; plus dry_run and expected_sha256). However, it does not explain selector, allow_locked, txid, or path, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates.

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 tool sets RefDes, name, value, or custom fields on selected components, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_component_value (only value) and set_component_fields (only fields) by covering multiple property types in one operation.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: dry_run=true previews without writing, and dry_run=false only after inspecting the preview and passing expected_sha256. This creates a safe workflow. However, it does not compare against alternatives or state when to prefer this over sibling tools like set_component_value.

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