gn_add_node

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether the node addition is reversible, how it affects the existing node tree, or any side effects. No extra transparency beyond the annotations is provided.

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 one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information about parameters and context, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively. Conciseness is not a virtue when it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 that this tool has 3 parameters, no descriptions, and an output schema, the one-sentence description is far from complete. It does not explain how to specify the target node group, what node types are supported, or what the operation returns. The description is inadequate for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (object_name, name, node_type). It fails to explain which parameters are required, what valid values exist, or how they relate to the action. The description provides no help in understanding parameter semantics.

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 action: adding a node to a GN node group object. This distinguishes it from related tools like add_geometry_nodes_modifier, which adds a modifier rather than a node. However, it lacks details on what types of nodes can be added and the exact nature of the 'GN node group object'.

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 on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where a different tool should be used instead. It simply states the action without contextual direction.

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