create_procedural_distribution

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects and behavior. It only states it sets up distribution via geometry nodes, without mentioning that it likely adds a modifier, whether it is destructive, if it requires a mesh selection, or what happens to existing distribution setups. No information about errors or return values is given.

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 efficient: a one-line summary followed by a structured args list. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Minor redundancy: the args list repeats names already in the schema, but the explanations are valuable. The format is clean and scannable.

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?

For a tool that creates a distribution, the description covers the parameters well but omits key operational context: whether it modifies the object's existing geometry nodes, if it requires a selected object, and what the result looks like (e.g., it adds a modifier). No output schema is provided, so the description should mention return behavior or side effects, but it does not. It is sufficient for basic usage but incomplete for robust agent decision-making.

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 description lists all five parameters with concise, meaningful explanations, including the special case for instance_object ('Empty = just points') and valid distribution options. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's types and defaults, which is especially important given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Set up'), resource ('points-on-faces distribution'), and method ('via geometry nodes'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like add_geometry_node or create_geometry_nodes_modifier by focusing on the distribution outcome. The arg list further clarifies scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manual geometry node editing or other distribution methods. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be preferable. The context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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