set_geonode_input

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

The idempotentHint annotation is true, meaning repeated calls with the same value have no additional effect. The description does not contradict this and simply says 'set default value'. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation—no mention of error handling, side effects, or what happens if the input path is invalid. With the annotation covering idempotency, the description is minimally sufficient but not richer.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose. There is no fluff, and every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward setter operation.

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?

With five required parameters, no schema descriptions, and only a one-line purpose, the description is inadequate for an agent to correctly call the tool. It lacks information on how to locate the geometry node modifier, how to specify the input (name or index), and what value types are acceptable. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but input construction is under-specified.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining the five required parameters. It does not. The parameter names (object, modifier, node, input, value) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description provides no details on expected formats, how to identify the input (string vs. integer), or how the value should be typed (number, array, etc.). This is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct valid arguments.

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) and the resource (geometry node input's default value). It is specific enough to distinguish from other node tools like get_geonode_input, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling set_geonodes_input (plural), which likely handles multiple inputs at once. The verb+resource is clear and unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_geonodes_input (plural) or set_node_input (for shader nodes). The description does not mention prerequisites like the object needing a geometry nodes modifier, nor does it indicate what to do if the input does not exist. An agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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