Set element or part metadata

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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a write operation, warns that non-editable properties are rejected, and instructs the agent to fetch property ids beforehand. It does not disclose permission requirements or partial-update behavior, but the core mutation semantics and precondition are well covered.

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 no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the key prerequisite and constraint. Every word earns its place.

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 plus fully documented schema covers the essentials: what to write, which ids are needed, and where to get them. It omits response/error behavior, but there is no output schema and the read-first instruction compensates for the main usage risk.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds useful semantic color with examples like part number, description, and material, but it does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Write') and resource ('properties such as part number, description or material') for element/part metadata, making the tool's function unambiguous. It also positions itself against the sibling onshape_get_metadata by prescribing a read-first workflow, helping an agent distinguish the setter from the getter.

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 gives clear context for use: read onshape_get_metadata first to obtain valid property ids, and only editable properties are accepted. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative setters, but the prerequisite and constraint provide adequate usage direction.

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