set_node_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the function returns a dict with 'path / position / success' and raises a ValueError if the node does not exist, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects such as persistence, triggering a cook, or whether the position is absolute vs relative. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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: a clear purpose sentence, a bulleted parameter list, and a brief note on return value and error behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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, the description covers the core behavior, return format, and error condition, which is fairly complete. However, the missing 'ctx' parameter explanation and lack of differentiation from 'move_node' are notable gaps. Given the tool's low complexity, the description is nearly complete but not fully.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains node_path, x, and y with meaningful semantics (e.g., 'x coordinate (Houdini units)'), but omits the required 'ctx' parameter entirely. Additionally, the schema types x and y as strings, while the description implies numeric coordinates—a potential confusion. The compensation is incomplete, warranting a score of 3.

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 states a specific action: 'Set node position in the network editor,' with a clear verb and resource. It lists the key parameters (node_path, x, y) that make the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'move_node,' which may serve a similar function, so it loses one point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 like 'move_node.' There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers. The usage is only implied by the tool name and basic description, which is insufficient for an agent choosing among many node manipulation tools.

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