sd_set_node_parameter

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

The description adds a behavioral detail beyond the annotations: that the tool reads and validates the runtime SD type before setting. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if validation fails, whether the change is persisted, or any side effects beyond the set operation. Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's contribution is modest but non-contradictory.

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 sentence with a clear verb phrase and is front-loaded with the action. It avoids filler and is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but it sacrifices some clarity for brevity. Overall, it is concise and structured well, though it lacks details that would make it more useful.

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's complexity (a nested NodeRef with 7 fields) and the lack of annotations describing side effects, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the 'supported simple parameter' constraint, how the value should be structured, or how the node is identified beyond the schema. The output schema exists, but the description still leaves critical usage aspects ambiguous.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (node, property_id, value). It merely says 'Set a supported simple parameter' without describing what the value should be, how to reference the node, or what property_id expects. The presence of a complex NodeRef object with many fields is also left unexplained.

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 a supported simple parameter' and implies the resource is a node parameter. However, 'simple parameter' is not clearly defined, and it doesn't differentiate from other node-related tools, but the verb+resource pairing is specific enough. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on setting, which no other tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'after reading and validating its runtime SD type' hints at a precondition, but it doesn't explain who should do the reading or what tool to use. No alternative tools are referenced, leaving the agent without context for appropriate use.

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