runtime_set_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'live mutation', which implies running-game changes, but lacks critical traits such as whether changes are temporary, what happens if the node path is invalid, or any safety/destructive implications. 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 that communicates the essential purpose without any fluff or redundancy. 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?

While the tool is simple with only two parameters and the schema covers them well, the description lacks guidance on when to use it versus related tools, and fails to disclose important runtime side effects. The absence of an output schema and annotations raises the need for more behavioral context, making this only minimally adequate.

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 input schema already provides complete coverage of both parameters with descriptions, including a concrete example for properties. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not exceed the schema's contribution. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Set'), the resource ('properties on a node'), and the context ('in the running game (live mutation)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'editor_set_node_properties' which targets the editor scene, and 'modify_node' which is more generic. The 'live mutation' phrase is a specific scoping detail.

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 clearly conveys the intended context: use when the game is running and you need to mutate a node's properties live. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like editor_set_node_properties or modify_node, leaving some ambiguity for agents choosing among similar tools.

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