Set Poietic attributes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: it discloses version-dependent transaction behavior (single undo history entry on v0.8+ vs N entries on older builds) and states that the response indicates which mode was used. It does not cover overwrite/merge semantics or error behavior, but the disclosed transaction behavior is material and useful.

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 four sentences, each carrying distinct information: the main operation, reference rules, version-dependent transaction behavior, and the edge caveat. There is no filler or redundant restatement, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the reference rules, transaction versions, edge-specific constraints, and even notes the response mode. Return-value structure is not fully described, but the schema handles parameter context and the response-mode note partially covers what to expect.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra nuance beyond the schema, particularly the edge-specific rule that edges have no names and must be referenced by numeric 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 description opens with a specific action ('Set one or more attributes') and clearly scopes it to a node or edge, referenced by ID or unique name. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the verb+resource combination is clear enough to distinguish it from the other poietic_* tools.

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 gives clear operational context: attributes can be set on nodes or edges, IDs are preferred, unique names are accepted, and edges must use numeric IDs because they have no names. It does not discuss when to use this tool over specific sibling tools, but the guidance is sufficient for ordinary calls.

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