set_statetree_node_property

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

No annotations are provided. The description discloses the target parameter (node vs instance) and notes that property values can be structs, arrays, or enums. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure behavior. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clear, though could be formatted with bullet points for better readability. No unnecessary information is included.

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 presence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation (setting a property), the description is fairly complete. It covers the essential aspects. However, additional context about valid property names or how to discover them would improve completeness.

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%, but the description compensates well by explaining each parameter: asset_path as content path, node_guid as GUID, property_name, property_value with type hints (structs as dict, arrays as list, enums as string), and target distinguishing node vs instance. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 tool sets a property on a task, evaluator, or condition by GUID. It specifies the resource (StateTree node) and action, distinguishing it from similar sibling tools like set_statetree_state_property and set_statetree_transition_property.

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 for setting properties on StateTree nodes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_statetree_state_property or set_statetree_transition_property. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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