set_compositor_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this mutates an existing node and describes the return (node name plus inputs after the change), but never says whether `settings` merges into existing inputs or replaces them, nor what happens if the node name doesn't exist — a critical ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded summary sentence, then compact Args/Returns blocks with no filler. Slightly verbose docstring scaffolding, but every line contributes 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?

Both required parameters are covered and an output schema exists, so the Returns section is bonus rather than necessary. The remaining gap is transactional semantics (merge vs replace, failure on unknown node), which matters for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: node_name is given a source, an example ("Glare"), and a type; settings is explained as an input-name-to-value mapping. The deferral to add_compositor_effect for settings details leaves some depth unstated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: change settings of an effect already in the compositor. The phrase "already in the compositor" implicitly distinguishes it from add_compositor_effect and remove_compositor_effect, though neither sibling is named.

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?

Gives clear context: the node must already exist, and the node_name comes from add_compositor_effect or list_compositor, which establishes the add-then-configure workflow. No explicit exclusions or when-not guidance, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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