set_aggregation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the mutation operation ('set') and the three valid values, which is adequate for a simple setter, but it does not mention side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or what happens to existing values. It adds minimal context beyond the schema and operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The parentheticals '(part)' and '(reference)' add meaningful disambiguation of the aggregation kinds, and the core purpose appears first. Every element 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?

For a simple 2-parameter setter with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, the target (Property), and all valid values. The only minor gap is explicit documentation of feature_id; return values are covered by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 partially: it enumerates the valid values for 'kind' (composite, shared, none), which the schema merely types as a string with a default. However, feature_id is only implied ('a Property's') and never explicitly documented as the target identifier, leaving a gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('a Property's UML aggregation'), and enumerates the valid values (composite, shared, none). It clearly distinguishes from sibling set_* tools (set_type, set_multiplicity, set_value) by naming the exact aspect it modifies, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent needing to change aggregation would naturally select this tool, and the sibling set_* tools each cover a distinct property aspect. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, leaving routing to inference.

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