set_dimension

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the function without revealing side effects (e.g., whether the model auto-rebuilds, if the change is undoable, or if it triggers any validation). The agent cannot infer safety or impact.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks any structural elements like examples or further context, which could be beneficial without adding much length.

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 is minimally adequate for a simple setter tool with full schema coverage. However, given no output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, more context (e.g., common usage patterns, error conditions, relationship to other tools) would improve completeness.

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% (both name and value have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Per guidelines, baseline is 3, and this meets that without improvement.

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 'Set the value of a dimension' clearly states the action (set) and the resource (dimension value), distinguishing it from siblings like add_sketch_dimension (adds new) or get_dimension (retrieves). The verb is specific and the context is a dimension in a CAD sketch or model.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools for adding, getting, and modifying dimensions, but the description does not clarify that this tool modifies an existing dimension's numeric value, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., dimension must exist).

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