set_component_value

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: dry_run prevents writing, real writes require expected_sha256, and distances are always in millimetres regardless of document units. With no annotations, this fills a significant gap. It doesn't mention prerequisites like active transactions or error behavior, but the disclosed safety protocol is valuable.

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 concise at three sentences and front-loads the purpose. However, the 'Input schema: diptrace://schemas/tool-inputs' line is redundant and provides no actionable info, wasting space. Otherwise, the structure is clean and prioritizes safety-critical information.

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 description adequately covers the safety workflow and unit discipline, but it omits how to select components (path vs selector), what 'value' means in this context, and how transactions are coordinated. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation support, this leaves notable gaps in operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description barely compensates. Only dry_run and expected_sha256 are explained in terms of their role. The core parameters—value, path, selector, and txid—are left entirely to the schema, which itself has no descriptions. This is a major weakness for a 6-parameter tool.

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's function: setting component values transactionally. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_component_properties or set_component_side, which target different attributes. The verb 'set' plus resource 'value' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on the dry-run workflow, instructing to only set dry_run=false after inspecting preview and passing expected_sha256. This is actionable usage direction. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternative setter tools, but the transactional context and safety steps are clear.

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