femm_set_node_prop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It implies a mutation (setting properties overwrites prior values) but never states reversibility, whether existing node properties are cleared, required document/session state, or what is returned. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a clear gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the selection behavior comes before the property assignment. The nested parentheticals make it slightly dense to parse but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most parameters and the nearest-node behavior. It still omits the `session` parameter, any document-state prerequisite, and mutation side effects, leaving the agent to infer too much about 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for most fields: `points` (coordinates used for nearest-node matching), `prop` (must come from femm_add_point_prop, with "" meaning none), `group`, and `conductor` (and its non-magnetics scope) are all addressed. Only `session` is left undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb-and-resource pair (set node property) and clarifies the non-obvious selection semantics: it acts on the nodes *nearest* each point rather than exact matches. This distinguishes it from the sibling property setters (femm_set_segment_prop, femm_set_arc_prop, femm_set_block_prop) by entity type, though it never says so explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives statement. The parenthetical '(from femm_add_point_prop, "" = none)' implies a prerequisite — the property must already exist — which is genuine usage context, but the condition for choosing this tool over other prop setters is left to inference.

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