modify_node

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

The description simply says 'Modify properties' without disclosing behavior like whether unspecified properties are preserved, whether the node must exist, error behavior, undoability, or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse for a tool with 12 parameters, so it does not earn a 5.

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 large parameter count, no annotations, no output schema, and a large set of overlapping sibling setters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how this bulk modifier relates to the specific setters, whether it performs partial updates, or what happens with null or omitted values.

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 100%, so all 12 parameters already have individual descriptions (X, Y, fill, name, etc.). The tool deescription adds no additional parameter meaning beyond 'properties', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Modify') and a resource ('properties of any existing node'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this generic tool from the many specific sibling setters like set_fill, rename_node, or set_opacity, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 modify_node instead of the numerous single-purpose sibling tools such as set_fill, set_rotation, or rename_node. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer when this generic tool is the right choice.

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