properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the resource scope and the pluginKey scoping semantics. It is silent on what actually happens in batch vs live mode, whether deletes are reversible, and the effect of the save flag, leaving meaningful behavior undisclosed for a delete-capable tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core CRUD purpose plus the pluginKey caveat are both front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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 14-parameter, zero-required CRUD tool with no output schema, the description covers the shape of the operation but not the matrix that matters: how action maps to keys/values/target, or how batch mode and save behave. It is adequate to recognize the tool but thin for correct invocation.

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 50% across 14 parameters, so the schema documents roughly half. The description only adds meaning for pluginKey (the 'publisher/extension' string format), which the bare schema lacks. Nothing explains how action interacts with keys/values/target, which is the core parameter logic.

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?

States specific verbs (gets/sets/deletes/replaces) and a specific resource (custom properties), and enumerates the exact target set (sprite, layer, cel, tag, slice, tileset, tile). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling set_sprite_properties, which overlaps on sprite-level property writes.

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?

Gives a concrete usage branch for pluginKey ('publisher/extension' reads/writes an extension's properties instead of user properties), which is genuinely helpful. However it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like set_sprite_properties, and no prerequisite or mode-selection advice for the action/target combination.

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