set_clip_properties

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint false), and the description adds valuable behavioral context: that supplying speed fails before any mutation. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, disclosing a failure mode. It does not detail other side effects or atomicity, but given the annotations cover the basic mutation profile, the added speed note earns a 4.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the primary function and then notes the key exception. Every word is informative, with no filler or repetition. It is highly concise while conveying all essential scoping information.

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 mutation tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and a notable failure condition. It could benefit from clarifying when to use this versus individual setters, but that gap is more of a usage-guidance issue. Overall, the definition is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not add extra meaning to individual parameters; it only highlights that speed is unsupported, which is also covered in the schema. Thus, the description provides limited additional parameter semantics, aligning with the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'clip properties', enumerating the supported ones (opacity, scale, position, rotation) and explicitly differentiating from unsupported speed. This distinguishes it from specific setters like set_clip_opacity or set_clip_scale, allowing an agent to understand its scope without inspecting the schema.

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 implies the tool is for setting multiple properties at once and notes that speed is unsupported, but it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this over individual setters or other mutating tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions beyond speed, leaving some ambiguity about optimal usage.

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