set_geonode_input

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

The idempotentHint annotation indicates safe repeatability, and the description adds the 'default value' detail, distinguishing from a current value. However, it does not disclose any side effects, required context (e.g., existing node/modifier), or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple operation, though it sacrifices explanatory detail.

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?

With five required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify the relationship between object/modifier/node/input, the return value, or how it differs from the plural set_geonodes_input tool, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the five parameters. While param names suggest roles, the 'input' can be string or integer, 'value' any type, and the description adds no meaning beyond the bare names.

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 clearly states the action (set) and the target (a geometry node input's default value), with a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling tool set_geonodes_input, which could cause confusion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_geonodes_input or set_node_input. The description implies a singular input but does not explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites.

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