create_geometry_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states the basic action and return value. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., creating a new node tree), failure conditions (e.g., object not found), or whether it replaces an existing modifier.

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 extremely concise, using a one-sentence purpose and clear parameter explanations. No unnecessary information.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no annotations, includes return description), the description covers the core functionality and param meanings adequately. However, it lacks mention of prerequisites like object existence.

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 explains both parameters (object_name and name) with their purposes and default values, adding value beyond the schema which has 0% coverage. It compensates well for the missing schema 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 clearly states 'Create a Geometry Nodes modifier on an object', specifying the verb and resource, which effectively distinguishes it from siblings like add_modifier (generic) and add_geometry_node (adds node to node tree).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as add_geometry_node for adding nodes to an existing tree, or set_geometry_node_input for modifying inputs. Neither context nor exclusions are mentioned.

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