set_node_color

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains input clamping ('负值 clamp 为 0.0，>1 值 clamp 为 1.0'), the return structure ('返回 dict 包含 path / color / success 三项'), and error behavior ('节点不存在时函数会抛 ValueError'). This is strong transparency, though it omits details about the ctx parameter.

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 concise and well-structured with clear parameter bullets and separate sections for return value and error behavior. Every sentence adds operational value, and there is no redundancy or filler. The use of a compact list format improves readability.

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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, parameters (except ctx), clamping, return fields, and exception behavior. The omission of ctx prevents a full score, as it is a required parameter. Overall, it provides sufficient context for confident invocation in most 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?

The description compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining node_path and the r/g/b components with their clamping ranges. However, the ctx parameter, which is required in the schema, is entirely missing from the description. Also, r/g/b are typed as strings in the schema, but the description treats them as numeric color components without clarifying how strings are converted, leaving a semantic 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: '设置节点颜色' (set node color), identifying the specific resource (node color) and action (set). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_node_flags and set_node_position by focusing solely on color. The clamp behavior adds useful specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as set_parameters or set_node_flags. It neither states ideal use cases nor explicitly excludes scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. This leaves the agent without contextual decision-making support.

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