set_elastic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states partial-update behavior ('Only passed values change') and the mass-edit meaning of line_index=-1, which are material side effects. It does not discuss response or error behavior, but the key mutation semantics are transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: the key behavior is front-loaded, followed by a tidy Args list. There is no filler, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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?

The description covers all inputs and the essential mutation semantics well enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps such as valid numeric ranges and any interaction between parameters are not specified, but the core calling context is complete.

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 compensates well by explaining all seven parameters. It adds concrete units (percent, mm), the special value 'or -1 for every line', and operational meanings such as 'Elastic on/off' and 'Outline line'.

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?

Description opens with 'Set elastic on a pattern line (or all lines with line_index=-1)', which gives a specific verb, target resource, and scope. It is clearly distinct from other setters in the sibling list, and the all-lines option removes ambiguity.

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 clearly establishes when to use it: when elastic properties need to be set on a pattern line, possibly across all lines. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use alternatives, but no sibling tool appears to cover the same operation, so the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable.

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