metasound_set_node_input_default

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already declare the safety profile. The description adds clear behavioral context beyond them: it reads the value back to verify and then saves, and it enumerates the concrete return fields (verified, saved, value_read_back), which tells the agent the write is confirmed rather than fire-and-forget.

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 purpose, then parameter rules, then the return shape in a compact block with no filler. The inline Returns JSON is slightly dense but earns its place given no output schema exists.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and verification/save semantics, plus prerequisite provenance for node_id. It stops short of noting that an existing default will be overwritten, but otherwise gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by tightening the constraint to "exactly one" of value/int_value/bool_value/string_value; the schema only labels them "optional, mutually exclusive", which could be misread as permitting zero arguments.

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+resource ("Set the default literal of a named input pin on a concrete node") and disambiguates from graph-level input tools via "on a concrete node (by node_id...)". The parenthetical routing node_id back to metasound_add_node_by_classname lets an agent separate it from metasound_set_input_default.

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?

Provides clear usage context for the value parameters ("Provide exactly one of value/int_value/bool_value/string_value") and names where node_id originates. However, it never states when to use this tool versus the sibling metasound_set_input_default or get_meta_sound_node_input_default, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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