set_node_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('set') but does not reveal side effects, such as whether existing connections are overwritten, whether the change is reversible, or what happens if the node or socket does not exist. It also does not mention whether this operates within a specific node tree context (e.g., material nodes, given the 'material' parameter). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, succinct sentence that states the core function and socket specification. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a parenthetical clarification for the socket parameter. No unnecessary words 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 a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention what the tool returns (if anything), error conditions, required node tree context, or any limitations. An agent would need to infer many operational details from the schema and tool name, making it incomplete for reliable 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?

The description adds value for the 'socket' parameter by explaining it can be a name, index, or 'Name#2' format, which the schema only types as string or integer. However, it provides no elaboration on 'material', 'node', or 'value' beyond their schema types. With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates; the semantics of the other parameters remain opaque.

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 clear action ('set the value') and resource ('node input socket'), with the ability to reference the socket by name, index, or 'Name#2'. It is specific enough to understand the tool's core purpose, but it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like set_geometry_node_input or set_node_property, which operate on similar resources. Without differentiation, an agent may struggle to choose between them.

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 such as set_geometry_node_input, set_principled_inputs, or set_node_property. There is no mention of context (e.g., material nodes vs. geometry nodes), prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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