Set Document Property

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

Annotations already declare write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the validation behavior against property type, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing values, behavior on invalid property) despite openWorldHint=true, so it only partially covers behavioral context.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description lacks contextual details needed for reliable invocation: it does not mention the optional workspaceId, prerequisites (e.g., property must exist), or any failure behavior. openWorldHint=true increases the need for such context, which is not provided. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and 50% schema coverage.

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 only 50%, with docId and workspaceId lacking descriptions. The description adds no new parameter semantics for these fields; it merely restates the 'property by id or name' and value validation already present in the schema. It fails to compensate for the undocumented workspaceId and docId.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('a document's custom property value') and the mechanism ('property by id or name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like clear_doc_property (which removes a property) and create_custom_property (which defines the property).

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the property must already exist) or contrast with clearing/creating properties. The usage context is only implied by the verb 'set', not stated.

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