set_node_properties

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses atomicity ('saves once after validation'), a non-obvious side effect ('Executes constructors'), and refusal conditions for instanced/unsupported properties. Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write; the description adds the transactional and side-effect profile the agent actually needs.

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?

Three dense clauses, front-loaded with the action and target, then constraints. No filler; each sentence adds distinct information (validation/save model, side effects, refusals).

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?

Behavior is well covered for a mutation tool with no output schema, but with six parameters, nested object values, and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about the dryRun/expectedHash contract. Adequate on semantics, incomplete on the parameter contract.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only hints at 'typed JSON values' for properties. It never explains dryRun (preview semantics), expectedHash (presumably optimistic-concurrency guard), or what projectPath/scenePath/nodePath must point at — including the two safety-relevant optional params an agent would most want described.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set stored properties on an existing local scene node') and constrains it to local (non-instanced) nodes, which cleanly separates it from set_node_reference and set_resource_properties. An agent knows exactly what object class this mutates without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear applicability condition ('existing local scene node') and explicit exclusions ('refuses inherited/instanced edits and unsupported property types'). It stops short of naming a sibling tool to use instead when the node is instanced (e.g. an override/reference tool), so routing on the negative case is left to inference.

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