Set Properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose whether setting properties replaces or merges existing values, how partial failures are handled, or whether certain properties are read-only for specific node types. The simple 'Modify properties' phrasing gives no insight into side effects or mutation semantics.

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 stating the core action, followed by a concise list of supported properties. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and parameter details adequately. However, it lacks guidance on mutation behavior (e.g., replace vs merge) and return value expectations, which are important for a mutation tool operating on 'any node'.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, but the props object is an unconstrained additionalProperties map, so the schema does not enumerate valid keys. The description compensates by listing the exact supported property names, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'Properties to set' description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Modify' with a clear resource 'properties of any node' and enumerates the supported property names (x, y, width, height, etc.), which gives immediate clarity on its scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_text or set_text_range_style that handle text-specific mutations.

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 usage for general visual property edits by listing supported properties, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like set_text or set_slide_theme. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the intended scope from the property list alone.

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