set_node_value

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

With destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false in annotations, the tool's mutation nature is already known. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as side effects, prerequisites (e.g., material must exist), or reversibility. It simply restates the operation.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and immediately gives a clarifying example, making it highly efficient.

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 tool, the description plus schema and annotations are mostly sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on error conditions (e.g., node or input not found) and does not explain the effect of not providing the optional value parameter (defaulting to 0). This prevents it from being fully complete.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's example (Roughness on Principled BSDF) effectively clarifies how material_name, node_name, and input_name map to real concepts. The value parameter is not explicitly explained but its purpose is self-evident from the tool's name.

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 action: set the value of a shader node input, with a concrete example (Roughness on Principled BSDF). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_shader_node or connect_shader_nodes, which perform different operations.

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 implies usage through the example, suggesting this is for setting arbitrary shader node input values. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which would be helpful given the many shader-related sibling tools.

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