editor_set_animated_sprite_param

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It says 'Set a property' (a mutation) but does not mention reversibility, permissions, error handling if the node/path is invalid, or whether changes are auto-saved. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly communicates the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple setter with fully described parameters and no output schema needed. The description provides the key context (open scene, AnimatedSprite, property). However, given no annotations and no mention of side effects or error conditions, it remains minimally complete but not rich enough for a higher score.

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?

The schema's description coverage is 100% for the three parameters (node_path, param, value), with each having a clear description including examples. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Set'), a distinct resource ('property on an AnimatedSprite node'), and the context ('in the open scene'). This differentiates it from the many sibling editor_set_*_param tools by specifying the node type, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by stating the node type and the action, but it does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives like editor_set_node_properties or other specific setters. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer based on the node type.

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