editor_set_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly discloses that the operation is live, undoable, and not saved until editor_save_scene, which are important behavioral traits. It also mentions the optional scene_path safety check in the schema, but the description itself does not elaborate on failure modes or side effects beyond the undo/save behavior.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Sets properties on a node'), followed by key behavioral caveats. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavioral context: live, undoable, not saved. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the optional scene_path safety check or the Godot-syntax requirement, but the schema already covers those. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a bit of context by noting the operation is live and undoable, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. The example in the schema ('position': 'Vector2(100, 50)') already clarifies the Godot-syntax requirement, so the description's contribution is minimal.

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 states a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('properties on a node in the scene open in the Godot editor'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'set_node_properties', but the mention of 'live, undoable with Ctrl+Z' and 'not saved until editor_save_scene' provides some distinguishing context.

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 context: it operates on the live editor scene and is undoable, and it notes that changes are not persisted until editor_save_scene. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_node_properties or editor_add_node, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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