set_node_position

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

The annotation provides idempotentHint, indicating repeated calls have the same effect, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose what 'position' means (e.g., absolute vs. relative), the coordinate system, or side effects on node connections. Since annotations exist, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add value beyond the annotation.

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 sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the key action. However, it is so brief that it verges on under-specification. While concise, it lacks enough detail to be truly useful; but for Conciseness dimension, it earns points for efficiency.

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?

The tool has a complex environment with many sibling node-related tools, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain the editor context, coordinate system, return value, or relationships with materials and nodes. The presence of an output schema might help, but without its content, the description remains incomplete for reliable use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining it parameters. It only mentions 'position', which maps loosely to the 'location' parameter, but it does not explain 'material' or 'node' at all. Users receive no guidance on what each parameter represents or how to format them, making this a critical 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?

The description 'Set a node's position in the editor' clearly identifies the action (set), the object (node's position), and the context (editor). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_node_input or connect_shader_nodes, which handle other node operations. However, it does not specify which editor (e.g., shader, geometry, compositor) or node type, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a material or node to exist, nor does it clarify when a user would choose set_node_position over other node manipulation tools. There is no explicit context or exclusions.

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