set_kerning_pair

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that negative values tighten spacing and that master_id defaults to the first master, but it does not say whether existing pairs are overwritten, whether pairs are created on demand, or what the operation returns.

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?

A one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args block is appropriately sized and front-loaded. Each line adds meaning that the schema does not provide, with no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the parameter details are strong, but the description is silent on overwrite-versus-create behavior and on any response or error conditions. These gaps matter for an agent invoking the tool correctly in an editing workflow.

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%, but the description compensates fully by documenting every parameter: accepted left/right group syntax (@MMK_L_.../@MMK_R_...), the meaning of value, and the default behavior for master_id.

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 opening sentence, 'Set a kerning pair value between two glyphs,' states a specific verb, resource, and target. It is clearly distinct from siblings like delete_kerning_pair, get_kerning, and analyze_kerning.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative kerning tools, such as delete_kerning_pair or analyze_kerning. The usage context is only implied by the word 'set,' with no exclusions or routing hints.

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