set_node_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the mutation action. It does not mention coordinate systems, whether the change is relative or absolute, side effects on other nodes, error conditions, or the response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool without any annotation coverage.

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 extremely short, which is concise, but the Args block simply repeats parameter names and adds no explanatory value, making it redundant. It lacks a structured overview of the operation or its context, so while it is not verbose, it is not well-organized for decision-making.

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 simple setter with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover essential context such as coordinate system, typical use cases, and any limitations. It provides none of this, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call the tool correctly in all scenarios.

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%, and the description merely lists parameter names without adding any meaning. 'node_path', 'x', and 'y' are not explained beyond their titles, leaving an agent without insight into expected formats, units, or constraints. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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 operation ('Set a node's position') and identifies the resource ('in the network editor'), which clearly distinguishes it from transform tools that might affect the 3D viewport. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_object_transform, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_object_transform or set_parameter. No context about prerequisites (e.g., valid node path) or when to avoid it is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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