build_geometry_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses atomic all-or-nothing execution, modifier creation if needed, guaranteed Group Input/Output wiring, and the return shape. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a complex mutation.

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?

Although long, the length is justified by the nested spec format; the atomic behavior is front-loaded, followed by structured Args, an example, and Returns. Every section contributes directly to correct invocation.

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 complex nested-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it explains atomicity, modifier behavior, spec schema, node/link format, and return values. The output schema also exists, so the description need not detail exact response fields.

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, and it does: object_name, modifier_name, and the nested spec structure are all explained in detail. It documents node settings, socket value forms, link tuples, zone pairing, valid input types, and provides a complete example.

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 and resource: build an entire geometry node graph on an object in a single call. It also distinguishes this from incremental graph construction by emphasizing the whole graph and naming get_geometry_node_tree for reading it back.

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?

It clearly indicates the use case: create a complete node graph atomically, with a named alternative for reading it back. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with nearby siblings such as create_geometry_nodes, add_geometry_node, or connect_geometry_nodes.

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