set_detail_attrib

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose important side effects: it appends an Attribute Create SOP, moves the display flag, and returns the new node's path. This goes beyond the schema and alerts the agent to network mutation, though it does not cover error cases or multiple-call accumulation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a concise behavioral note and a minimal parameter list. No filler sentences, though the Args block is highly redundant with the schema.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return value but omits prerequisites (e.g., node must exist and be a SOP node), indicates no error conditions, and does not mention that repeated calls will keep appending new nodes. Given the tool's complexity, it is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but the Args list merely restates the schema titles ('Node path', 'Attribute name', 'Value to set') without adding type semantics, valid formats, or the fact that value accepts arrays. It adds little beyond the input schema.

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 'Set a detail attribute on a SOP node', naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It further differentiates itself by describing the implementation ('Appends an Attribute Create SOP after the node and moves the display flag to it'), distinguishing it from generic parameter setters in the sibling list.

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 does not explicitly route the agent to alternatives or state when not to use it. The intended use is implied by the first sentence (when you need to set a detail attribute on a SOP node), but there is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling set_* tools like set_parameter.

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