geometry_nodes-link

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create a link', without explaining whether existing links are overwritten, what happens if sockets are incompatible, or the required state of the nodes (e.g., must already exist in the modifier). It also doesn't mention any validation or error behavior.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is skimming on necessary details; while concise, it omits crucial context that could be included without bloating (e.g., socket type compatibility, behavior on existing links). It is not tautological but is minimal.

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 complexity (5 required params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention the need for nodes to exist, how sockets are referenced (name vs index), or what happens if the link fails. The schema is sparse, so the description has a heavy burden that it fails to meet.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 6 parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema titles. It doesn't clarify that 'from_socket' and 'to_socket' accept names or indices, or that 'modifier' is optional and defaults to the first geometry nodes modifier. The schema titles provide some context, but the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 the tool creates a link between two Geometry Nodes sockets, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like shading-link_nodes and compositor-link by referencing Geometry Nodes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other geometry_nodes-* tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as shading-link_nodes for shader nodes or compositor-link for compositor nodes. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like the existence of a Geometry Nodes modifier or the objects owning it.

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