set_curve_property

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

The idempotentHint annotation already covers repeat-safety, and the description adds context by enumerating the specific properties that can be set. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as value constraints, error behavior, or whether setting some properties might have side effects on other properties. The property list is useful but minimal beyond the annotation.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action and resource, then lists the supported properties. It contains no filler, redundant phrases, or repetition of the input schema fields. Every word adds value.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple setter but has clear gaps. It does not specify the expected object parameter, value types, or how properties like dimensions should be structured. Since there is an output schema, return values are not a concern, but the lack of parameter usage details and the absence of context around curve objects makes it only minimally complete for an agent.

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 for the bare 'string' type of the 'property' parameter. It does so by listing valid property names, which adds real meaning. However, it does not explain the 'object' parameter (which curve object) or the 'value' parameter format (e.g., dimensions likely expects an array of two floats). This partial compensation earns a middle score.

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 tool's verb ('Set') and resource ('curve property') and lists specific properties it can set (bevel_depth, extruded, dimensions, etc.). This differentiates it from sibling setter tools like set_material_property or set_light_property because the property list is curve-specific, though it does not explicitly mention 'curve object' in the description.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternative setter tools. The tool name and property list imply it is for curves, but there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.

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