Conduit

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

Annotations are present but complex (ZodEffects with refinement), indicating potential validation or transformation behavior not fully disclosed. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it implies a write operation (mutation) by using 'Sets', but doesn't detail effects like whether changes are reversible, require specific permissions, or have side effects on sibling nodes. With annotations providing some structure, the description adds limited value beyond the obvious mutation intent.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Sets node properties') and includes essential details (examples, scope). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 0 parameters but likely internal validation via annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavioral traits, error conditions, or output (no output schema provided). With annotations hinting at refinement effects and no output schema, more detail on expected results or constraints would improve completeness for safe agent use.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters, with 100% description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. It implies properties like 'locked' and 'visible' are set, but since there are no parameters in the schema, this doesn't add or detract from parameter understanding—it's neutral and fits the baseline for zero parameters.

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 ('Sets') and target ('node properties'), with examples of specific properties like 'locked' and 'visible'. It also specifies scope ('for one or more nodes'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'set_node' or 'set_annotation', which could handle related operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing node IDs or permissions, or contrast it with sibling tools like 'set_node' (which might set different properties) or 'set_ariable' (for variables). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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