ctrl_set_property

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered externally. The description adds useful context by mentioning support for non-animatable properties and optional frame-based writing, which goes beyond the annotations. It does not describe side effects of setting arbitrary properties or whether writes create keyframes, but this is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 short and front-loaded, with the core action and key example in the first sentence. The bilingual duplication adds some length but is standard for this tool set, and there is no filler 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?

With 4 parameters, full schema coverage, and a destructive annotation, the description is adequate for invoking the tool: it explains the property path mechanism, optional frame, and object selection fallback. However, it lacks any note on when to use this tool versus nearby setters and does not mention return or error behavior, which matters more given the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a useful dotted-path example ('material.diffuse') and clarifies the non-animatable scope, but it does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Set'), a resource ('any object property'), and a key capability (dotted paths such as material.diffuse, including non-animatable properties). It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like ctrl_set_value or set_property_value, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explains what the tool can do but gives no guidance on when to choose it over the many related setters in the sibling list, such as ctrl_set_value, set_property_value, or mat_set_property. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection criteria.

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