godot_modify_node

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful context that the node must already exist and that the operation targets the active scene, but it does not disclose persistence behavior, undo behavior, or what happens if a property is invalid.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, target, and scope without any redundant filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding of what the tool does.

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 plus schema covers the core requirements: node path and a dictionary of properties. Still, for a mutation tool with many specialized sibling configuration tools, it would be stronger to mention whether changes persist, require saving, or affect the scene immediately.

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?

The input schema provides clear descriptions for node_path and properties, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, the description adds no extra meaning about property naming conventions, valid values, or examples, which would be useful since 'properties' is a free-form dictionary.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('properties on an existing node in the active scene'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like godot_create_node, godot_delete_node, and godot_get_node. It also narrows scope with 'existing' and 'active scene', which prevents confusing it with creation or scene-level operations.

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 intended use is implied: modify properties of an existing node in the current scene. However, there is no explicit guidance on when this tool should be preferred over alternatives such as godot_set_shader_param, godot_apply_theme_override, or godot_configure_* tools, and no when-not-to-use exclusions are provided.

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