set_gn_node_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It simply says 'set the default value', which implies a mutation but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether the change persists, if it fails when the input doesn't exist), or any return behavior. No additional context is offered beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that immediately states the action and context. There is no redundant or extraneous text, making it highly concise and front-loaded.

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 that there are four required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficiently detailed. It doesn't mention that the node group must already exist, what happens when the input name is invalid, or how the value should be formatted. While an output schema exists, the tool's preconditions and edge cases are not addressed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on parameter semantics. It hints that 'value' is the new default and 'input_name' identifies which input, but that's directly inferable from the names. No types, formats, or relationships between parameters are explained, leaving the agent to guess.

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 the default value of a node input' within a 'geometry node group'. This clearly distinguishes it from other geometry-node operations like add_gn_group_input or connect_gn_nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the similar compositor tool set_compositor_node_input, though the geometry node group context is explicit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., node group must already exist), or that it's for modifying an existing node's input default rather than adding a new input. The usage context is only implied by the description itself.

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