create_lop_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses mutation (MUTATING), the requirement that node_type exist in a probe, single undo group behavior, failure cleanup (destroys half-finished product), and that responses pass through apply_response_cap. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutating 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides essential behavioral details in just a few sentences. Every sentence adds meaningful information without fluff or redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical behavioral aspects (mutation, undo, failure cleanup, response cap) and the node_type constraint. It does not explain the format or meaning of ctx and parent_path, nor what the successful return value looks like, but for a creation tool with these constraints, it is reasonably 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 adds valuable context for node_type (must exist in the probe), but provides no additional meaning for ctx, parent_path, or node_name. The parameter names are self-descriptive to a degree, but with no schema descriptions, this leaves gaps for required parameters like ctx and parent_path.

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 states a specific verb (create) and resource (LOP node), plus a key constraint: the node must be created under an editable LOP parent. It also references the add-usd-solaris-tools category and explicitly marks the operation as MUTATING, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_node or create_wrangle.

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: use this when creating a node under an editable LOP parent and when node_type must come from the hou.lopNodeTypeCategory() probe. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the editable-parent restriction and reference to the LOP-specific probe imply when this tool is appropriate.

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