Set Node Graph Port Value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that this is a convenience wrapper, shows the internally constructed payload, and documents the array-to-maxon.Vector coercion. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the wrapper transparency compensates substantially.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second adds the implementation and coercion details. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the addressing scheme, the relationship to apply_graph_description, and the value coercion. It does not describe error behavior or prerequisites, but the provided context is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 the baseline is 3 because every parameter already has a description. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the exact {$query:{$id:node_id}, port: value} payload and the maxon.Vector coercion for 3-number lists, going beyond what the schema states.

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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('a single port on a node'), and the context ('node material graph'). It also distinguishes itself from apply_graph_description by explicitly calling itself a thin convenience wrapper over that operation.

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?

It clearly positions the tool relative to apply_graph_description ('Thin convenience over... internally builds') and implies this is the right choice for single-port updates. It does not enumerate exclusions versus other sibling tools like set_xpresso_port, but the node-material-graph context provides sufficient guidance.

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