Set parameter

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that the value can be a number, string, or list for multi-component parameters, but says nothing about error behavior for unknown parameters, whether changes are undoable, or how the write is applied to the node.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one non-obvious detail about value types. No filler, though the extreme brevity leaves obvious questions unaddressed rather than being wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a three-required-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, the description should at least characterize 'path' and 'parm' and note failure modes. As written, an agent has to guess at the addressing scheme before it can call this correctly.

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% and all three parameters (path, parm, value) are undocumented in the schema. The description only partially compensates by explaining the accepted value types; it says nothing about the expected path format (node path syntax) or whether 'parm' is case-sensitive or a tuple/name form.

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 and resource ('Set a parameter on a node'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_node, create_node, and connect_nodes. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use for reading or bulk-editing parameters, but the core action is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as the node existing or the parameter name being valid, and no alternatives offered (e.g., execute_python for anything this tool can't express). The agent must infer all of this.

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