set_field

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: generated store text violating Valve's rules is rejected, and setting a value to null removes it (a destructive side effect made explicit). It stops short of stating permissions or reversibility.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then layers the source/draft semantics and path examples; nearly every clause earns its place. It is dense but not padded, though the path-example sentence is somewhat lengthy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a 7-param mutation tool the description is largely complete, with the only real omission being the `notes` parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for most parameters: field, value, values, source, and from_draft are all explained with examples. However, the `notes` parameter is entirely undocumented and `path` (the required param) is only implied by 'into steamworks.yaml', leaving a gap.

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?

States a specific verb (write) and resource (value into steamworks.yaml) with two explicit modes (single field+value vs. bulk values). It also names the draft workflow, letting an agent distinguish it from siblings like save_draft and approve_fields without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance for the source parameter (user=approved, generated=draft-for-review) and for from_draft. It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer set_field over siblings such as save_draft, approve_fields, or apply, so alternatives are implied rather than enumerated.

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