mod_set_param

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Set' is consistent but adds no additional behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, what happens on invalid modifier or parameter names, or return behavior. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 purpose. It is bilingual but concise, with no filler. The structure is clear and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more organized, but it earns high marks for brevity and clarity.

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 simple setter tool, the description covers the essential operation and object selection. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention return values, error behavior, or what happens if the modifier or parameter does not exist. Given the tool's simplicity, it is minimally adequate but lacks completeness for edge cases.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats the type coercion note already present in the schema and adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, allowed values, or relationships between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles the semantics.

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 the tool sets a single parameter (param=value) of a modifier, with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('single parameter of a modifier'). It distinguishes from siblings like mod_set_params (plural) and mod_get_params by explicitly saying 'single parameter', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mod_set_params for multiple parameters. The description only mentions that the object list can be omitted to use current selection, which is a usage detail but not about selection between tools. No exclusions or 'when not to use' are provided.

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