set_geonodes_input

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

Annotations only provide idempotentHint: true, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds that the tool works at modifier level and affects the Group Input interface, but doesn't explain prerequisites (e.g., modifier must be Geometry Nodes), failure modes, or side effects on dependent geometry. Comparable to the get_calls calibration example, score 3.

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?

Single short sentence with no filler, directly states the operation. Score 5.

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?

Despite an output schema, the description leaves critical gaps: no parameter semantics, no usage guidance, no mention of constraints (e.g., modifier type), and potential confusion with similarly named set_geonode_input. It is incomplete for a 4-param mutation tool. Score 2.

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 does not explain any of the four parameters (object, modifier, input_name, value). It only gives a vague hint about 'input' referring to the Group Input, but leaves meaning of object and modifier unclear. Since description doesn't compensate for low schema coverage, score 2.

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 ('modifier-level input'), explicitly noting it's for Group Input interface values. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_geonode_input (node-level) and set_modifier_property (general modifier properties), earning 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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies it is for setting values on Geometry Nodes modifier inputs, but doesn't mention when to prefer it over set_geonode_input or set_modifier_property. This is implied usage, so score 3.

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