set_node_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether the change is persisted with the scene, whether it is undoable, what coordinate space the position is in (editor graph space vs. anything else), or what happens if node_path does not resolve.

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 action in the first sentence and compact overall. The Args block is mostly filler ('ctx: MCP context.') but nothing is bloated or buried.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin — it omits persistence/undo behavior, coordinate semantics, and error conditions that an agent needs before invoking it.

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 supply parameter meaning. Instead the arg list only restates the parameter names ('Node path.', 'Horizontal position.', 'Vertical position.'), adding no units, coordinate-space semantics, or valid node_path syntax. Only 'in the network editor' hints at the coordinate frame.

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 (set) and resource (a node's position) and localizes it to the network editor, so the effect is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related sibling move_node, leaving the agent to guess which one applies.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus move_node, layout_children, or set_object_transform, and no prerequisites (node must exist, network context must be current). Usage is only implied by the name.

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