set_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states the action and supported languages, with no mention of whether existing expressions are overwritten, whether parameter permissions matter, how cooking is affected, or what the return value is. This is a significant transparency gap 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?

The description is concise at two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds a useful detail about language values. It is efficiently structured, even though it lacks depth.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is overly minimal. It fails to explain expected results, prerequisites (e.g., parameter existence), side effects on the scene, or error conditions. Context is significantly incomplete for an agent to invoke it reliably.

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. It adds meaning only for the 'language' parameter by specifying allowed values ('hscript' or 'python'), which the schema does not provide. However, it provides no semantic guidance for node_path, parm_name, or expression, leaving most parameters under-documented.

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 action ('Set an expression') and resource ('node parameter'), which differentiates it from value-setting tools like set_parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools such as get_expression or lock_parameter, so it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation that would merit a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_parameter or evaluate_expression. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when to prefer one language over the other. The language note is a parameter hint, not usage guidance.

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