set_game_node_property

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

The description discloses that this is a mutating operation ('Set') and specifies the return value ('old and new value'), which is useful. But with no annotations, it doesn't address potential side effects, persistence, error conditions, or whether the property must already exist.

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 entire description is a single 19-word sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key return behavior. There is no redundant or filler content, making it highly efficient.

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 simple three-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the core operation and return value, but it lacks annotation-level safety info and details about path syntax or failure behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to confidently handle edge cases.

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, but it only adds context around 'live node' and 'one property'. It doesn't explain the expected format of node_path, how property names are resolved, or how complex values are handled beyond the schema's anyOf type.

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 ('Set') and clearly identifies the target resource ('one property on a live node in the running game') and the return behavior ('old and new value'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_set_property and update_property by emphasizing single-property mutation on a live/runtime node.

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?

It provides clear context: use this when setting a property on a live/running node, as opposed to editor-scoped tools. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, such as using batch_set_property for multiple properties.

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