gsa_gen_node_at

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not resolve the create-vs-find ambiguity, say whether an existing node within tolerance is returned instead of creating one, or note that this mutates the model. The only behavioral hint is the word 'find', which is left undefined.

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?

At four words it is front-loaded and wastes nothing, but the brevity is under-specification rather than true conciseness. A slightly longer sentence resolving the create/find behavior would earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is far too thin. The tolerance semantics and the create-versus-find outcome are exactly the things an agent must know and neither is covered.

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 schema gives no help, and the description only obliquely covers x/y/z via 'coordinate'. The 'tol' parameter, which determines when a nearby existing node is matched, is not mentioned at all, leaving a meaningful part of the interface undocumented.

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 names a resource (node) and a locator (coordinate) with the verbs 'create/find', so an agent knows roughly what domain it operates in. However, the phrase largely restates the tool name gsa_gen_node_at, and the dual 'create/find' wording leaves it ambiguous whether a node is always created, only found, or created only if absent. No differentiation from siblings such as gsa_node_coor is offered.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsa_node_coor or gsa_node_connected_ent, and no mention of prerequisites such as an open model or active view. Usage can only be inferred from the terse phrase 'at coordinate'.

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