geometry_nodes_set_param

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

The description adds one useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations: 'value is string-coerced.' However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the node group must already exist, what happens when the param is not found, or whether changes are persisted. With minimal annotations, the description only partially carries the behavioral disclosure burden.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, and the 'string-coerced' caveat is placed immediately after the core action.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics for node_group_name and node_name, gives no usage context or alternatives, and does not explain expected behavior when required values are missing. An agent would need to guess or inspect other sources.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies 'param' as 'property or input default_value' and notes that 'value' is string-coerced, but it does not explain node_group_name or node_name semantics, valid param formats, or how defaults behave.

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 action ('Set'), the target ('a param on a node'), and refines what kind of param ('property or input default_value'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geometry_nodes_add_node, geometry_nodes_link, and geometry_nodes_create at a glance.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as shader_set_node_param, or how it relates to adding/creating nodes. No exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended contexts are provided.

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