editor_set_rich_text_param

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Set a property'. It omits key details such as side effects (e.g., modifying the scene graph), whether changes are undoable, how the value is parsed/validated, and what the return value indicates. This is insufficient 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, but it is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 lack of annotations and the existence of many sibling param-setter tools, the description is too minimal for complete guidance. It does not explain how this tool fits into a workflow, mention prerequisites (e.g., an open scene with a RichTextLabel node), or alert the agent to any constraints. The schema helps, but the description leaves significant gaps.

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 provides 100% coverage with meaningful descriptions for all three parameters (node_path, param, value), including examples and format hints. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (set a property) and the target resource (a RichTextLabel node in the open scene), distinguishing it from sibling param-setter tools like editor_set_animated_sprite_param. The verb and resource are specific and 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 provides clear context: it applies to RichTextLabel nodes in the currently open scene. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, though the node-type specificity implicitly guides selection among sibling tools.

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