set_dimension

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose the main effects: setting the value, rebuilding, and remeasuring. It also conveys the parametric/driving nature of the edit. It does not cover failure modes, save/persistence, or output behavior, but the core side effects are stated.

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 efficient sentences front-load the action and then add only relevant context. Every phrase earns its place, with no repetition of schema or title.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the definition covers what it does, when to use it, and how to obtain the dimension name. Missing explicit return value and error handling details, and there is no output schema, so it isn't fully complete, but it is sufficient for correct invocation in the stated loop.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description provides essential meaning: dimension_name is in the role-qualified form 'D1@BlockExtrude' and is provided by modelling tools, while value_mm is explicitly in mm. This compensates well for the empty schema but doesn't add constraints like valid ranges or naming rules.

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 identifies a specific operation: set a named driving dimension (with example) in mm, then rebuild and remeasure. It positions the tool as the parametric edit in the correction loop, which separates it from geometry-creation siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast it with set_equation or rebuild.

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 gives a clear usage context ('the parametric edit at the heart of the correction loop') and explains where dimension_name comes from ('Every modelling tool returns its dimensions by role'). It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives, so it is just short of a 5.

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