set_core_properties

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

With no safety annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'Set' indicates mutation, but it does not explain whether null values clear properties, whether the change is reversible, or whether only explicitly supplied properties are updated. The agent is left unaware of side effects.

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 only four words and contains no filler, so it is concise. But it is under-specified for a tool with six optional nullable parameters; the brevity comes at the expense of needed detail, resembling under-specification rather than polished efficiency.

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 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is not complete enough to support correct invocation. It does not explain which document is affected, how presentation_id should be supplied, or what null parameter values mean. The output schema helps only with return values, not with these key ambiguities.

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% and the description names none of the six parameters or their intended behavior. The parameter names are self-evident, but the description does not clarify the meaning of the nullable defaults or how presentation_id is used, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Set core document properties.' The schema confirms the scope includes title, author, subject, comments, keywords, and presentation_id. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like save_presentation or create_presentation, and 'core document properties' is left undefined for an agent.

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 instead of a sibling, no exclusion conditions, and no prerequisites. An agent cannot determine whether this is the appropriate tool for metadata updates versus other presentation-management operations.

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