set_property

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: Edit Mode vs Play Mode limitation, bulk-set behavior via find_type, dry_run semantics, and ObjectReference format variants. This goes beyond annotations and helps predict side effects. No contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence adds value. It leads with the core purpose and exclusions, then covers find_type, rename alternative, ObjectReference details, and dry_run. Slightly dense for readability, but no wasted words. Could benefit from bullet lists, but still concise overall.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides essential context: mode limitation, bulk behavior, reference path formats, and dry_run. It doesn't cover return values or edge cases, but given the tool's nature and sibling context, it is reasonably complete. Enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 compensates by explaining find_type, path formats (scene/asset/sub-asset/instanceID/null), and dry_run. It implies prop and component meanings from context, though it doesn't explicitly define them. This is strong compensation for a schema with no parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Set component property'. It immediately distinguishes from siblings by scoping to Edit Mode/SerializedObject and directing Play Mode to invoke_method/execute_code. It also clarifies bulk behavior via find_type and mentions rename_object for GO renames, so it clearly differentiates from related tools.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'for Play Mode use invoke_method or execute_code' and 'For GO rename use rename_object()'. It also explains when find_type is appropriate (bulk-set on all matching objects without paths). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context relative to alternatives.

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