set_anim_graph_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: mutation requires at least one field, invalid attributes are rejected with the settable list, and the return mirrors get_anim_graph. It omits concerned details like rename-collision or permission behavior, but the error and validation semantics are unusually well surfaced.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the return contract, then the one-change constraint, then a structured Args block. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant against the schema.

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?

Six parameters, two required, all documented, with error behavior and the return contract covered even though an output schema exists. An agent has everything needed to invoke this mutation correctly without further inspection.

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 only bare titles exist, so the description must compensate — and it does, documenting every parameter: anim_graph_id as number or digit string, node_id sourced from get_anim_graph, position as integer [x, y] pixels, enabled as toggle, and attributes as reflected fields with a concrete motionIds example and read-back note.

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?

States a specific verb (edit) and resource (a node) and enumerates the exact operations: rename, move, enable/disable, set reflected fields. This enumeration cleanly separates it from siblings like add_anim_graph_node, remove_anim_graph_node, and get_anim_graph without needing to name them.

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?

Gives a usage constraint ('Pass at least one change') and validation behavior ('An unknown attribute is refused with the settable fields listed'), which is helpful. However, it never states when to reach for this tool versus the many other anim-graph editing siblings (add/remove node, connect ports, set transitions), so routing is left to inference.

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