neurover_set_text_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and "Меняет полотно" is consistent with the mutation hint while adding that the change is visible on the shared canvas. However, it never says whether existing tile text is overwritten, what happens if the node is not a text tile, or what the call returns; openWorldHint=true is unaddressed.

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?

Three short sentences, mutation and the permission gate front-loaded, alternative routing last. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is padding.

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?

A four-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs the description to cover parameter meaning and result behavior, and it does neither. The usage gate is excellent, but an agent still cannot tell what workflowId/account do or what the response looks like.

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 carry the burden, and it only implicitly hints at two of four parameters (the text payload and the target tile). workflowId and account are completely unexplained, and there is no statement about id format, ownership, or required scoping.

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?

"Записать текст в текстовую плитку" gives a concrete verb (write) plus a concrete resource (text tile), so the operation is unambiguous. It gains some differentiation by pointing to prepare_generation for normal generation, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related neurover_update_node / neurover_rename_node siblings that could plausibly also alter a 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 states an explicit gating condition ("вызывать только по прямой просьбе пользователя о плитках или полотне") and names the alternative tool for the other case (prepare_generation via canvas chat). Both the when and the when-not are present, which is rare and exactly what routing needs.

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