set_param

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies a parameter (a mutation), but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or error behavior. Basic but lacking depth.

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 short and front-loaded with the action. It includes a list of arguments and return value. While efficient, the 'Args:' format is slightly unconventional for MCP but still clear.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema/annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on what happens if the object does not exist, expected value formats, or related tools, making it only minimally complete.

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. It explains each parameter: 'object_id: ID of the object', 'parameter: Parameter name', 'value: New value'. This adds meaning beyond property names in the schema. However, no format or constraints are provided.

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 'Modify a parameter of an existing Pd object.' This is a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('parameter of Pd object'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like get_param (reading) and create_object (creation).

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 modifying parameters of existing objects by mentioning 'existing Pd object', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_object or get_param. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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