set_node_groups

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that groups are replaced, but omits other critical behavioral aspects such as side effects, permissions, error conditions, or whether changes are immediate or require saving. The single 'replaces' clause is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence with only 8 words, front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word is essential with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple nature (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core action but lacks completeness regarding preconditions, return values, and error handling. It adequately describes what happens but not enough for an agent to anticipate failures or side effects.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (path and groups). No examples, constraints, or details on group name format are given.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sets groups on a node and specifies that it replaces existing groups. It uses a specific verb (Set) and resource (groups a node belongs to), effectively distinguishing it from related siblings like get_node_groups and set_scene_group.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., find_nodes_in_group, set_scene_group, or manual group addition). The description only implies usage by stating the operation, but lacks exclusions or direct comparisons.

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