set_workspace_node_modes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It explains the behavioral difference between 'muted' and 'bypassed' with concrete examples ('stops a node producing anything' vs 'passes its inputs straight through') and discloses atomicity ('the whole call is one undo step') and validation behavior ('nothing changes unless every entry is valid'). This is comprehensive disclosure beyond simply stating the action.

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 well-structured and every sentence earns its place. It opens with a clear statement of purpose, then defines key terms, notes atomicity, and lists arguments with meaningful descriptions. It is appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and a non-trivial modes object.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers all parameters with semantics, explains the core concepts, and provides usage context. The atomicity and validation behavior are disclosed, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to select or invoke it correctly.

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 fully explain parameters, and it does. It defines the exact format for modes (`"{\<node_id\>: \"always\" | \"muted\" | \"bypassed\"}"`), explains scope values ('root' vs 'active'), and provides the default behavior for client_id. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema structure.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mute or bypass nodes in the workflow open in the browser.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explaining the specific semantics of muted and bypassed states and how they help narrow a workflow. The reference to set_workspace_values for atomicity further positions it within the workspace tool family.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Both are how a workflow gets narrowed to the part being worked on.' It implies usage where temporary node deactivation is needed without unwiring, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like remove_workspace_nodes. This is a clear context with no exclusions, fitting the 'no exclusions' criteria.

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