ap_node_set_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the mutation semantics of each kind, the distinction between socket values and button widgets, and the important follow-up requirement of ap_material_update. It does not cover permissions, errors, or return values, but the core behavior and sequencing are disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second defines all variants, and the third gives the critical follow-up instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral axes: kind semantics, socket defaults, button specifics, and the required material update. The only notable gap is that button index details are deferred to an external node reference, and there is no mention of return values or error behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by explaining what each 'kind' means, how color/vector/float map to socket values, how 'button' maps to widget state, and how the input-socket default works. This lifts it above baseline without fully documenting every parameter detail.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Set a value on a node') and immediately enumerates the four kinds it supports. This clearly differentiates the tool from structural siblings like ap_node_add, ap_node_remove, and ap_node_connect.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: socket-based kinds default to input sockets, and edits should be followed with ap_material_update. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives, but the tool's domain is distinct enough that the usage context is clear.

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