set_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (writes are never undone), return values ({previous, current}), error behavior (unknown property raises), and inhibition conditions (allow_writes = false). This is thorough and transparent.

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 concise and to the point, covering essential behavioral aspects in a few sentences. It avoids unnecessary fluff and front-loads the core action and return type.

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 covers the tool's primary purpose, side effects, error conditions, and return shape. It doesn't need to explain more for a simple property setter. A minor gap is not stating what a 'ref' is, but given sibling tools like inspect_object and find_object, the context is likely familiar. Overall, the tool is well-contextualized.

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?

The schema lacks any parameter descriptions, and the description provides limited clarification. It implies ref is an object reference, name is a property name, and value is the value (with type restrictions), but these are not explicitly defined. The description does not adequately compensate for the 0% schema coverage, leaving ambiguity for parameter meanings.

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 (write one property), the resource (an object), and the allowed types (number, bool, string). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_property by explicitly focusing on writing, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: it mentions that writes are irreversible, unknown property names raise errors, and refusal occurs when allow_writes is false. While it doesn't explicitly state 'use when you want to modify a property,' this is implied by the verb 'write' and the contrast with get_property. Minor gap in not naming alternative tools explicitly, but adequate.

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