set_detail_attrib

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key non-obvious behavior: it appends an Attribute Create SOP after the node, moves the display flag to it, and returns the new node's path. This tells the agent the original node is not mutated in place. It still omits failure modes and whether the operation is undoable.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the side effects, then a compact Args block. Every sentence carries information; the args re-statements are low-value but brief. No padding or hedging.

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 unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main operation and states the return includes the new node's path. However, it leaves parameter formats and the semantics of 'detail' attributes (versus point/prim attributes) unspecified, so an agent still has open questions.

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 compensate for all three undocumented parameters. The glosses ('Node path.', 'Attribute name.', 'Value to set.') merely restate the parameter names, adding no format, attribute-class, or type-constraint guidance. With a polymorphic 'value' accepting scalars or arrays, this is a real gap.

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+resource ('Set a detail attribute on a SOP node'), which is precise enough to distinguish it from generic setters like set_parameter or create_node. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the near-neighbor set_usd_attribute, but the Houdini-specific 'detail attribute on a SOP node' framing is concrete and actionable.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is for stamping a detail-level attribute onto SOP geometry. No alternatives are named (e.g., versus set_parameter, create_wrangle, or set_usd_attribute) and there is no statement of when not to use it. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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