Set or update the documentation comment of a SysML model element to capture design notes or rationale.
Set the documentation (owned Comment body) of an element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| element_id | Yes | ||
| documentation | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation (setting documentation) but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing content, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The phrase 'owned Comment body' adds some context but does not describe the actual behavior beyond the 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.
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 mutation with an output schema, the description is too thin. It lacks usage context (when to call), behavioral details (overwrite semantics, prerequisites), and does not leverage the output schema to inform the agent about expected results. The low complexity of the tool reduces the bar slightly, but the missing guidance on use cases makes it incomplete.
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. It identifies element_id as the target and documentation as the content, but provides no additional meaning about formats, constraints, or how the element is identified. The 'owned Comment body' detail adds a bit of context but leaves many semantic gaps.
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 states the action (set) and resource (documentation, specifically the owned Comment body of an element). It is specific enough to distinguish from other set_* siblings, though it could explicitly mention it replaces existing documentation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites like element existence or ownership. It does not mention that setting documentation might be used before checking coverage, nor does it reference sibling tools like check_documentation_coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.