Update node properties in a Godot scene by specifying property values to set or overwrite.
Sets or overwrites one or more properties on an existing node in a scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| properties | Yes | e.g. { "position": "Vector2(100, 50)", "visible": "false" } | |
| scene_path | Yes | ||
| project_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that properties are set or overwritten, implying a write operation, but it does not explain what happens if the node does not exist, whether properties are merged or fully replaced, whether changes are persisted automatically, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and object. There is no extraneous information, and it is well-structured for quick reading. It earns a perfect score for conciseness, though this brevity contributes to incompleteness elsewhere.
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 has four required parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An agent has no information about return values, error conditions, the format of property values beyond an example, or how this tool relates to the editor_* siblings. It leaves too much to inference, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
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 only 25%, with only the 'properties' parameter having a description. The description does not compensate by explaining the roles of project_path, scene_path, or node_path. It only implicitly ties 'properties' to the action but adds no meaning beyond the schema's example. With low schema coverage, the description should clarify these parameters but does not.
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: 'Sets or overwrites one or more properties on an existing node in a scene.' It identifies the verb (set/overwrite), the resource (properties on a node), and the context (scene). This distinguishes it from tools like add_node or remove_node, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling editor_set_properties, which likely performs a similar operation in the editor context, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like editor_set_properties and various editor_* tools, an agent cannot infer whether this tool operates on files directly or requires an open scene, nor when to prefer it over the editor variant. The description offers no contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.