Set Parameters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and delivers well: it discloses that values are validated against the catalog, that null resets to the block default, and that the change is graph-only rather than live-session. It stops short of stating permissions, failure behavior when validation fails, or whether changes are reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the two facts an agent actually needs (null reset, graph-vs-session routing). Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, an output schema available, and a nested-object parameter, the description covers the critical semantics — validation, reset behavior, and graph-only scope. The remaining gap is the meaning of `name` and the shape of `parameters`, which no structured field documents.

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%, so the description must compensate and does partially: it explains null-value reset semantics and catalog validation for the nested `parameters` object. It never clarifies that `name` identifies the target block (by id or name) or what keys the parameters object accepts, leaving meaningful gaps for a 0%-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource — setting parameters on a block in the graph — and qualifies the scope with 'validated against the catalog' and 'edits the graph only'. The sibling update_block_settings is named and differentiated, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'This edits the graph only; use update_block_settings to change a running session.' That names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity about graph-state vs. session-state edits.

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