set_record_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It successfully discloses partial-update behavior (unchanged properties persist) and identification preferences (uuid preferred). However, it fails to explicitly flag this as a write/mutation operation requiring existing record resolution, or disclose error behavior if resolution fails.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero waste: first declares action and valid properties, second explains record resolution hierarchy, third clarifies partial update semantics. Information is front-loaded and structured logically.

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 complex 13-parameter tool with conditional resolution logic, the description adequately covers the property set, identification methods, and update behavior. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, it should explicitly state this performs write operations on existing records to complete the safety profile.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds valuable semantic context: clarifying UUID is 'preferred' over other methods, grouping coupled parameters (recordId + databaseName), and mapping technical terms to UI concepts (flag/flagged, locked/locking). This goes beyond raw schema documentation.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Set properties on a DEVONthink record' with a comprehensive enumerated list of settable properties (comment, flag, locked, excludeFrom*). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_record_properties (read) and update_record_content (content vs metadata).

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?

Provides explicit resolution strategy ('Resolve record by uuid (preferred), recordId + databaseName, or recordPath + databaseName') and critical update semantics ('Only provided properties are updated'). However, lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance comparing it to create_record or get_record_properties.

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