armorpaint_set_node_value

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

All annotations are false and carry little safety signal, so the description shoulders the behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful constraint — the numeric array length must match get_material_graph's report — and 'Set' correctly implies mutation. It does not describe failure modes, reversibility, or effects on existing connections, but there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with no filler; the first leads with the verb and object, and the second carries a genuinely useful constraint. The description is appropriately compact for the information it conveys, though the minimal length means it forgoes richer parameter explanation.

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?

This is a complex node-graph manipulation tool with five parameters, four required, and zero schema-level descriptions. The description never explains how node_id and index address ports within the graph, whether material_id is needed, or what value types the array should contain. The output schema covers return values, but the input addressing scheme is too under-specified for an agent to call this correctly without guessing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all five parameters. It partially does: the 'kind' enum values (input/output/button) are echoed, and the length constraint clarifies the 'values' array. It leaves node_id, index, and material_id undefined, and the index semantics (position within a port list) remain ambiguous.

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?

'Set a node input, output, or button value' is a specific verb+resource description that clearly identifies the operation. It implicitly distinguishes the tool from graph-topology siblings like connect_nodes, disconnect_nodes, add_node, and remove_node, since it addresses value-setting rather than structure. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling for differentiation, and the relationship to get_material_graph is only implied.

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 hints at a prerequisite — the values array length must match what get_material_graph reports — which implies an ordered workflow of query-then-set. It provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives among the many node-editing siblings. This qualifies as implied usage rather than clear context with exclusions.

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