set_current_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the one-line action. It does not say whether this changes global editor state, whether the change is persistent or reversible, whether invalid paths error, or whether any prior state is affected.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a structural defect in itself.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a state-mutating tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description is too thin. It omits path format, error behavior, and scope of effect, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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% for the single required 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: it never states the expected path syntax, whether it is absolute or relative, or what a valid network path looks like. The word 'path' is repeated without adding meaning.

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 clear verb (set) plus a specific target (current network path in the network editor), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like get_network_overview or set_selection. It does not, however, clarify what a 'network' or 'network path' means in this domain (e.g. a Houdini node path such as /obj/geo1), so some inference remains.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent is left to guess whether this tool is needed for navigation, node creation, or something else.

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