set_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is undoable, per-parameter failure with did-you-mean suggestions, and the presence of a 'failed' list in the result. This goes beyond a basic statement of intent, though it could mention node-path requirements or success signaling.

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?

Four sentences, immediately front-loaded with the main action. Examples are compact and illustrative. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers input formats, error handling, and a prerequisite. It could explicitly state that 'path' refers to a node path, but this is implied strongly. Overall complete enough for confident invocation.

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 explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: explains scalar vs list vs menu token/label values with concrete examples, and mentions that unknown names fail per-parameter. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Set one or more parameters on a node' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_parameter' (singular) by emphasizing 'one or more' and 'single undoable call.' The examples further clarify the scope.

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 explicit guidance to use get_parameter_schema first when unsure, which is a clear prerequisite. It implies usage for setting parameters versus other tools, but does not explicitly contrast with the singular set_parameter. Context about value formats helps usage decisions.

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