sw_set_dimension

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

The mention of "rebuild" is the only behavioral hint, and it is useful (it implies a model rebuild and downstream geometry changes). Beyond that, nothing is disclosed about which configurations are affected, whether changes are reversible, or what errors occur for a bad dimension name. Annotations only rule out read-only and destructive, so the description still carries a large burden it does not fulfil.

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?

Six words, front-loaded and waste-free, but the brevity crosses into under-specification for a mutating tool with a rebuild side effect. It is concise rather than informative.

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?

A four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond non-readonly/non-destructive. An agent cannot learn from the description whether the rebuild is full or partial, whether the call fails when the dimension is driven by an equation, or how configurations interact with the change.

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 100%: the schema already explains the dimension name format, units for value, the doc default, and the configurations wildcard. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Change a dimension" names a specific verb and resource, and "and rebuild" signals the coupled side effect. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings like sw_rename_dimension or sw_list_dimensions, and "change a dimension" is ambiguous about whether the value or the identity is being altered.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. Nothing tells the agent to prefer sw_rename_dimension for name changes or sw_list_dimensions to discover valid dimension names before calling this.

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