geometry_nodes_add_node

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

The annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the act of adding a node. It does not disclose whether the group must already exist, whether existing connections are preserved, or what the outcome/response is. No contradiction exists, but the description carries little transparency weight.

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 a short example list that adds practical value. There is no wasted wording and the key verb-resource pair appears immediately.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description names both parameters in context and supplies examples for the less obvious one. However, it lacks details like whether the node group must exist, how to reference it, and what happens on invalid node_type, so it is only minimally complete.

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 compensate. It gives helpful examples for node_type but does not define the expected format or explain node_group_name beyond the phrase 'geometry node group'. Both required parameters remain under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Add a node to a geometry node group') and provides concrete example node types, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like geometry_nodes_create or geometry_nodes_link, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than related tools such as geometry_nodes_create, geometry_nodes_link, or geometry_nodes_set_param. The examples imply a use case but do not state prerequisites or alternatives.

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