Update node parameters

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing strict atomic behavior, error semantics (unknown names fail entirely, bad values report partial success), and the returned value. This adds critical behavioral context for an agent to predict outcomes.

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?

Three sentences that front-load the core purpose, then detail behavioral nuances, then offer usage alternatives. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly: it states purpose, prerequisites for parameter discovery, preconditions for animation, strictness semantics, and return value. No output schema is present, but the description fills that gap sufficiently.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enhances parameter understanding by clarifying that parameters are set to 'constant values', that unknown parameter names cause atomic failure, and that invalid values trigger a detailed error. This significantly augments the raw 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 action: 'Modify an existing node by setting one or more of its parameters to constant values.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_td_node_parameters and animate_parameter, and the title aligns with the described behavior.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'To inspect valid parameter names/current values first use get_td_node_parameters; to make a parameter move over time use animate_parameter instead of a static value.' This directly addresses usage context.

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